UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
BPOS]:
LEGAL ETHICS
PRACTICE OF LAW
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training, and experience (Cayetano v.
Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991). The
following acts constitute practice of law: (a) Giving of
advice or rendering any kind of service that involves
legal knowledge; (b) Appearance in court and conduct of
cases in court; (c) Preparation of pleadings and other
papers incident to actions; and (d) Notarial acts.
Criteria to determine practice of law [CAHA]
1. Compensation – implies that one must have
presented himself to be in active practice and that his
professional services are available to the public for
compensation, as a source of livelihood or in
consideration of his said services;
2. Application of law, legal principle, practice or
procedure – calls for legal knowledge, training and
experience;
3. Habituality – implies customary or habitually
holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer. Practice
of law is more than an isolated appearance for it
consists in frequent or customary action; and
4. Attorney-Client relationship - engaging in the
practice of law presupposes the existence of a
lawyer-client relationship. Practice of law includes
work as a litigator, in-house counsel, giving of legal
advice, teaching of law, and foreign assignment
which requires the knowledge and application of the
laws.
Counsel de oficio - An attorney appointed by the court
to defend an indigent defendant in a criminal action.
Counsel de parte - A private counsel of a party secured
by him, without intervention from the government.
Amicus Curiae - An experienced and impartial attorney
invited by the court to appear and help in the disposition
of the issues submitted to it. Amicus curiae appear in
court not to represent any particular party but only to
assist the court (plural: Amici Curiae).
Practice of law is a privilege
The practice of law is not a natural, property or
constitutional right but a mere privilege. It is not a right
granted to anyone who demands it but a privilege to be
extended or withheld in the exercise of sound judicial
discretion. It is a privilege accorded only to those who
measure up to certain rigid standards of mental and
moral fitness (Pineda, 2009).
Law is a profession and not a trade
The legal profession is not a business. It is not a money-
making trade similar to that of a businessman
employing a strategy for monetary gain. It is a sacred
profession imbued with public interest whose primary
objective is public service, as it is an essential part in the
administration of justice and a profession in pursuit of
which pecuniary reward is considered merely
incidental. The practice of law is a noble calling in which
emolument is a byproduct, and the highest eminence
may be attained without making much money (Burbe v.
Atty. Magulta, AC No. 99-634, June 10, 2002).
ADMISSION TO THE BAR
Requirements for admission to the Bar [C21-GREN-
1 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
1. Citizen of the Philippines;
2. At least 21years of age;
3. Of Good moral character;
4. Resident of the Philippines;
5. Must produce before the SC satisfactory Evidence
of good moral character;
6. No charges against him, involving moral turpitude,
have been filed or are pending in any court in the
Philippines;
7. Must have successfully completed all the prescribed
courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its
equivalent degree, in a law school or university
officially recognized by the Philippine Government
or by the proper authority in the foreign jurisdiction
where the degree has been granted;
8. Must Pass the bar examinations;
9. Take the lawyer’s Oath
10. Sign the Roll of Attorneys.
NOTE: Good moral character is a continuing
requirement (Grande v. Atty. De Silva, A.C. No. 4838, July
29, 2003).
Requirements for admission of a Filipino citizen
who graduated from a foreign law school
a. Completion of all courses leading to the degree of
Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree;
b. Recognition or accreditation of the law school by
the proper authority;
c. Completion of all fourth-year subjects in the
Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law
school duly recognized by the
Philippine Government; and
d. Present proof of completing a separate bachelor’s
degree.
NOTE: Filipino citizenship is a continuing requirement.
No automatic right to resume law practice if citizenship
is reacquired under R.A. 9225 (Petition for Leave to
Resume Practice of Law, Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678,
December 17, 2007).
APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS
GR: Only those who are licensed to practice law can
appear and handle cases in court.
XPNs:
1. Law student practice;
2. Non-lawyers in court can appear for a party in MTC;
and
3. Non-lawyers can represent parties in
administrative tribunals such as NLRC, DARAB,
and Cadastral Courts.
Law student practice Rule
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 (Sec. 2, Rule 138-A).
NOTE: 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 (Circular No.19, dated December 19, 1986).
Non-lawyers in court
1. In Cases before the MTC: A party to the litigation,
may conduct his own case or litigation in person,
with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him
UST BAR OPERATIONS
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC);
2. Before any other court, a party may conduct his
litigation personally but if he gets someone to aid
him, that someone must be authorized member of
the Bar (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC);
3. Criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a
duly licensed member of the Bar is not available, the
judge may appoint a non- lawyer who is a resident
of the province and of good repute for probity and
ability to aid the accused in his defense (Sec. 7, Rule
116, RRC); and
4. Any official or other person appointed or
designated to appear for the Government of the
Philippines in accordance with law (Sec. 33, Rule
138, RRC).
Proceedings where lawyers are prohibited from
appearing
1. Proceedings before the Small Claims Court - No
attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a
party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the
plaintiff or defendant (Sec. 17, Rule of Procedure for
Small Claims Cases).
2. Proceedings before the Katarungang
Pambarangay - During the pre-trial conference
under the Rules of Court, lawyers are prohibited
from appearing for the parties. Parties must appear
in person only except minors or incompetents who
may be assisted by their next of kin who are not
lawyers (P.D. No. 1508, Formerly Sec. 9; Local
Government Code of 1991, R.A. 7160, Sec. 415).
Remedies against practice of law without authority
[ICE-DA]:
1. Petition for Injunction;
2. Contempt of court;
3. Criminal complaint for Estafa against a person who
falsely represented himself to be an attorney to the
damage of a party;
4. Disqualification and complaints for disbarment; or
5. Administrative complaint against the erring lawyer
or government official.
Remedies against unauthorized practice of law by
non-lawyers [ICE]:
1. Petition for Injunction;
2. Contempt of court; or
3. Criminal complaint for Estafa against a person who
falsely represented himself to be an attorney to the
damage of a party.
Public Officials and Practice of Law
PROHIBITED: (1) President, (2) Department
Secretaries, (3) Judges and Justices, (4) Prosecutors,
(5) Solicitor and Members of the OSG, (6) Members
of Constitutional Commissions, (7) Governors, and
(8) Mayors.
ALLOWED BUT WITH RESTRICTIONS: (1) Senators,
(2) Members of the House of Representatives, (3)
Vice-Governors, (4) Vice Mayors, and (5) Members
of the Sanggunians
ALLOWED IF APPROVED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Civil Service Employees
Sanctions for non-lawyers
They shall be punished with contempt of court, severe
censure and three (3) months imprisonment because of
the highly fraudulent and improper conduct tending
directly to impede, obstruct, degrade, and make a
mockery of the administration of justice (Manangan v.
CFI, G.R. No. 82760, August 30, 1990; Lapena, 2009).
2 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
NOTE: (1) A person who has been refused admission to
the bar by order of the Supreme Court but nonetheless
attempts to practice law is guilty of indirect contempt.
(2) A disbarred lawyer still appearing in court is guilty
of indirect contempt. (3) A judge who was merely
suspended and not dismissed from service is still bound
by the prohibition.
LAWYER’S OATH (2018 Bar)
I, ___________________, of _____________, do solemnly swear
that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will
delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct
myself as a lawyer according to the best of my
knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well
to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself
these voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
OF A LAWYER
LAWYER AND SOCIETY
CANON 1. Uphold the Constitution and obey the laws
of the land and legal processes
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct
Unlawful conduct does not necessarily imply the
element of criminality although the concept is broad
enough to include such element. It is transgression of
any provision of law, which need not be a penal law.
Dishonesty means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive,
defraud or betray; be untrustworthy; lacking in
integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle,
fairness and straightforwardness.
Deceitful conduct means having the proclivity for
fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or
device that is used upon another who is ignorant of the
true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party
imposed upon.
Immoral conduct is 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 (Jimenez v. Francisco, A.C. No. 10548,
December 10, 2014).
Grossly immoral conduct is one that is so corrupt and
false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
Acts constituting gross immorality: (1) Abandonment
of wife and cohabiting with another woman; (2) A
lawyer who had carnal knowledge with a woman
through a promise of marriage which he did not fulfill;
(3) Seduction of a woman who is the niece of a married
woman with whom respondent lawyer had an
adulterous relation; (4) Lawyer arranging marriage of
his son to a woman with whom the lawyer had illicit
UST BAR OPERATIONS
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
relations; (5) Lawyer inveigling a woman into believing
that they have been married civilly to satisfy his carnal;
(6) Lawyer taking advantage of his position as chairman
of the college of medicine and asked a lady student to go
with him to Manila where he had carnal knowledge of
her under threat that if she refused, she would flunk in
all her subjects; (7) Bigamy perpetrated by the lawyer;
(8) Concubinage coupled with failure to support
illegitimate children; (9) Maintaining adulterous
relationship with a married woman; (10) A retired
judge who penned a decision 7 months after he retired,
antedating the decision and forcing his former court
staff to include it in the expediente of the case; (11)
Forging a Special Power of Attorney; (12) Attempting to
engage in an opium deal; and (13) Facilitating the travel
of a person to the U.S. using spurious travel documents.
Acts NOT constituting gross immorality: (1) Turning
the head of his client to kiss her on the lips while in a
public place and then immediately apologizing
afterwards via text message; (2) Live-in relationship
involving two unmarried persons; or (3) Failure to pay
a loan.
GR: A lawyer may not be disciplined for failure to pay
a loan. The proper remedy is the filing of an action
for collection of a sum of money in regular courts
(Toledo v. Abalos, A.C. No. 5141, September 29, 1999).
XPN: A deliberate failure to pay just debts and the
issuance of worthless checks (Lao v. Medel, A.C. No.
5916, July 1, 2003).
Q: Atty. Rivera misrepresented himself as an
immigration lawyer, which resulted to Agot seeking
his assistance to facilitate the issuance of her US visa
and paying him the amount of ₱350,000.00 as
downpayment for his legal services. However, Atty.
Rivera was not able to perform his obligation. Is
Atty. Rivera administratively liable?
A. YES. As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to
maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency,
but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing,
as provided for under Rule 1.01, Canon 1. Atty. Rivera
has no specialization in immigration law. Atty. Rivera’s
deception is not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and
dishonorable to the legal profession; it reveals a basic
moral flaw that makes him unfit to practice law (Agot v.
Atty. Rivera, A.C. No. 8000, August 5, 2014, PERLAS-
BERNABE).
Malpractice refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of
duty committed by a lawyer (Tan Tek Beng v. David, A. C.
No. 1261, December 29, 1983).
Moral turpitude is 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 justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals (Garcia v. Sesbreno,
A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, February 3, 2015).
NOTE: Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal
act and is not shown by every known and intentional
violation of statute, but whether any conviction involves
moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently
depends on all the surrounding circumstances. While
generally but not always, crimes mala in se involve
moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not, it
cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude
does or does not exist by classifying a crime as malum in
se or as malum prohibitum, since there are crimes which
are mala in se and yet rarely involve moral turpitude and
there are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are
mala prohibita only. It follows therefore, that moral
3 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the
meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial
inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached (Garcia v.
Sesbreno, A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, February 3,
2015).
Acts involving moral turpitude are conviction of: (1)
Estafa and/or BP 22; (2) bribery/ attempted bribery;
(3) murder; (4) homicide; (5) illegal marriage before
admission to the bar; (6) falsification of public
document; (7) Estafa through falsification of public
document; (8) Abduction; (9) Concubinage; (10)
Smuggling.
NOTE: A lawyer's act of issuing a worthless check,
punishable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, constitutes
serious misconduct, for which no conviction of the
criminal charge is even necessary (Lim v. Atty. Rivera,
A.C. No. 12156, June 20, 2018, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Psychological incapacity of a lawyer does not
necessarily make him an unfit member of the Bar (Paras
v. Paras, G.R. NO. 147824, August 2, 2007).
Effect of acquittal to the administrative case
If the acquittal is based on the ground that no crime
was committed, the administrative case may be
dismissed. But if the acquittal is based merely on
reasonable doubt, the disbarment proceeding may
continue. The purpose of a disbarment proceeding is to
determine whether a lawyer deserves to remain a
member of the bar. For such determination, conduct
which merely avoids the penalty of the law is not
sufficient.
Gross misconduct is any inexcusable, shameful and
flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of the person
concerned in the administration of justice which is
prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right
determination of a cause, a conduct that is generally
motivated by a predetermined, obstinate or intentional
purpose (Campos v. Campos, A.C. No. 8644, January 22,
2014). It constitutes improper or wrong conduct, the
transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere
error of judgment (Abella v. Atty. Barrios, A.C. No. 7332,
June 18, 2013, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: There is an existing dispute regarding a
commercial property owned by URCI. Atty. Uy
mortgaged the same, while there is an existing Trust
Agreement wherein Atty. Uy, in his capacity as
President of URCI, already recognizing Yupangco-
Nakpil to be the true and beneficial owner of the
same. Yupangco-Nakpil filed an administrative
complaint. After compromising, Yupangco-Nakpil
withdrew her complaint. Is there serious
misconduct?
A. NO. The squabble which gave rise to the present
administrative case largely constitutes an internal affair,
which had already been laid to rest by the parties.
However, Atty. Uy still committed some form of
misconduct by, mortgaging the subject property,
notwithstanding the apparent dispute over the
same. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code, engraves an
overriding prohibition against any form of misconduct.
He should not have exposed himself even to the slightest
risk of committing a property violation nor any action
which would endanger the Bar's reputation. Verily,
members of the Bar are expected at all times to uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
UST BAR OPERATIONS
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the
trust and confidence reposed by the public in the
fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession
(Yupangco-Nakpil v. Atty. Uy, A.C. No. 9115, September 17,
2014, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: Atty. Jimeno signed a Deed of Absolute Sale to
Aquino as attorney-in-fact of Geronimo Sr. even
though she knew that Geronimo Sr. merely co-owns
the property with his children because of the death
of his wife, Perla. Should Atty. Jimeno be
administratively liable?
A: YES. Instead of advising the Geronimo Sr. to settle the
estate of Perla to enable the proper registration of the
property in their names preliminary to the sale to
Aquino, she voluntarily signed the subject deed, as
attorney-in-fact of Geronimo Sr., despite the patent
irregularities in its execution. Despite being aware that
something was amiss with the documents of sale, Atty.
Jimeno allowed herself to become a party to the subject
deed which contained falsehood and/or inaccuracies in
violation of her duties as a lawyer. The act of Atty.
Jimeno in affixing her signature on a deed of sale
containing falsehood and/or inaccuracies constitutes
malpractice and gross misconduct in her office as
attorney (Jimeno v. Atty. Jimeno, A.C. No. 12012, July 02,
2018, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
Acts aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system: (1) Advising his clients
to execute another Deed of Sale antedated to evade
payment of capital gains taxes; (2) Lawyer who engages
in prohibited campaigning, use of government resources
and solicitation of votes, in campaigning for national
positions in the IBP; or (3) Repeatedly disobeying
orders of SEC to appear in its hearings and repeatedly
failing to substantiate his excuse for failing to appear.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive
or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or
delay any man’s cause.
Impropriety of voluntary giving of advice
It is improper to voluntarily give legal advice when the
lawyer, in giving such, is motivated by a desire to obtain
personal benefit, secure personal publicity, or cause
legal action to be taken merely to harass or injure
another.
Barratry is an offense of frequently exciting and stirring
up quarrels and suits, either at law or otherwise;
lawyer’s act of fomenting suits among individuals and
offering his legal services to one of them. Barratry is not
a crime under the Philippine laws. However, it is
proscribed by the rules of legal ethics.
Ambulance chasing is an act of chasing victims of
accidents for the purpose of talking to the said victims
(or relatives) and offering his legal services for the filing
of a case against the person(s) who caused the
accident(s). It has spawned a number of recognized evils
such as: [FSMD]
1. Fomenting of litigation with resulting burdens on
the courts and the public;
2. Subornation of perjury;
3. Mulcting of innocent persons by judgments, upon
manufactured causes of action; and
4 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
4. Defrauding of injured persons having proper causes
of action but ignorant of legal rights and court
procedures by means of contracts which retain
exorbitant percentages of recovery and illegal
charges for court costs and expenses and by
settlement made for quick returns of fees and
against just rights of the injured persons (Hightower
v. Detroit Edison Co. 247 NW 97, 1993).
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 rule requires that lawyers encourage settlement
only when the same is fair. It should be noted that the
duty and the right of the lawyer is limited to encouraging
the client to settle. Ultimately, however, the final
decision to settle a claim rests upon the client. A lawyer
cannot compromise the case of his client without the
latter’s consent even if he believes that the compromise
is for the better interest of the client (Pineda, 2009, citing
Philippine Aluminum Wheels Inc. v. FASGI Enterprises
Inc., G.R. No. 137378, October 12, 2000).
CANON 2. Make legal services available in an
efficient and convenient manner
Q: The rendition of free legal services is a lawyer’s:
(2014 Bar)
A: Moral duty is above social obligation and legal
mandate. The lawyer voluntarily imposes upon himself
higher duties and more noble obligations enshrined in
the Lawyer's Oath which goes beyond commitment to
social obligation and legal mandates.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done
any act designated primarily to solicit legal business
Advertisements
GR: Advertisement by lawyers is NOT allowed. The most
worthy and effective advertisement possible is the
establishment of a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust (Director of
Religious Affaits v. Bayot, A.C. No. L-1117, March 20,
1944).
XPNs: [LEPO-LABAN-PD]
1. Reputable Law lists, in a manner consistent with the
standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of
brief biographical and informative data;
2. Advertisements or simple announcement of the
Existence of a lawyer or his law firm posted
anywhere where it is proper such as his place of
business or residence except courtrooms and
government buildings;
3. Ordinary, simple Professional Card. It may contain
only a statement of his name, the name of the law
firm which he is connected with, address, telephone
number and the special branch of law practiced;
4. A simple announcement of the Opening of a law firm
or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm
name or office address, being for the convenience of
the profession;
5. Advertisements or announcement in any Legal
publication, including books, journals, and legal
magazines and in telephone directories (Ulep v.
Legal Clinic, Inc., B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993);
6. Writing legal Articles;
7. Engaging in Business and other occupations except
when such could be deemed improper, be seen as
indirect solicitation or would be the equivalent of a
law practice;
UST BAR OPERATIONS
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
8. Activity of an association for legal representation;
9. Notice to other local lawyers and publishing in a
legal journal of one’s availability to act as an
associate for them;
10. Seeking a Public office, which can only be held by a
lawyer or, in a dignified manner, a position as a full-
time corporate counsel; and
11. Listing in a phone Directory, but not under a
designation of a special branch of law (Atty. Khan Jr.
v. Atty. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003).
NOTE: For solicitation to be proper, it must be
compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If
made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring
no injury to the lawyer or to the bar (Pineda, 2009).
Q: Atty. Tabalingcos was charged with unlawfully
soliciting clients and advertising legal services
through various business entities. He allegedly set
up two financial consultancy firms, Jesi and Jane
Management, Inc. and Christmel Business Link, Inc.,
and used them as fronts to advertise his legal
services and solicit cases. However, he contended
that his law firm had an agreement with Jesi and
Jane Management, Inc., whereby the firm would
handle the legal aspect of the corporate
rehabilitation case; and that the latter would attend
to the financial aspect of the case’ such as the
preparation of the rehabilitation plans to be
presented in court. Is Atty. Tabalingcos guilty of
unlawful solicitation?
A: YES. He violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which
prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for profit. A
lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or
other lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though,
when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in
such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s
duties as a member of the bar. This arises when the
business is one that can readily lend itself to the
procurement of professional employment for the
lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for indirect
solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of a nature that,
if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice
of law. It is clear from the documentary evidence
submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane Management,
Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal
consultant, was indeed a vehicle used by Atty.
Tabalingcos as a means to procure professional
employment; specifically, for corporate rehabilitation
cases (Villatuya v. Tabalingcos, A.C. No. 6622, July 10,
2012).
NOTE: The rule against solicitation applies to a lawyer
who offers monetary reward to those who can serve as
witness/es in the case, which he is handling (CPR
Annotated, PhilJA).
Examples of indirect solicitation: (1) Writing and
selling for publication articles of general nature on legal
subjects; and (2) Writing unsolicited articles on a legal
subject.
NOTE: If engaged in another profession or occupation
concurrently with the practice of law, the lawyer shall
make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer
or in another capacity.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower
than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant (1997, 2005 Bar)
GR: A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those
customarily prescribed.
XPN: When clients are relatives, co-lawyers, or are
5 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
indigents.
CANON 3. Use of true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information in making known legal
services
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.
(1997 Bar)
Certain self-laudatory information such as election to a
public office, scholastic honors and achievements, and
legal authorships may be disseminated. What is
prohibited is that which “creates an unjustified
expectation about results the lawyer can achieve (Funa,
2009).
Examples of Deceptive Adverstisements: (1)
Misstatements of fact; (2) Suggestions that the ingenuity
or prior record of a lawyer rather than the justice of the
claim are the principal factors likely to determine the
result; (3) Inclusion of information irrelevant in
selecting a lawyer; and (4) Representations concerning
the quality of service, which cannot be measured or
verified.
Q: Determine whether the following advertisements
by an attorney are ethical or unethical. Write
“Ethical” or “Unethical” as the case may be, opposite
each letter and explain.
A. A calling card, 2” x 2” in size, bearing his
name in bold print, office, residence and e-
mail addresses, telephone and facsimile
numbers.
B. A business card, 3” x 4” in size, indicating the
aforementioned data with his photo,
1” x 1” in size.
C. A pictorial press release in a broadsheet
newspaper made by the attorney showing
him being congratulated by the president of
a client corporation for winning a multi-
million damage suit against the company in
the Supreme Court.
D. The same press release made by his client in
a tabloid.
E. A small announcement in BALITA, a tabloid
in Filipino, that the attorney is giving free
legal advice for September 2002 (2002,
2017 BAR).
A:
A. ETHICAL – A lawyer, in making known his legal
services, shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective information or statement of facts
(CANON 3, CPR).
B. UNETHICAL – The size of the card and the
inclusion of the lawyer’s photo in it smacks of
commercialism.
C. UNETHICAL – A lawyer should not resort to
indirect advertisements such as procuring his
photograph to be published in a newspaper in
connection with a case he is handling. He should
not pay or give something of value to the
representatives of the mass media in anticipation
of, or return for, publicity to attract legal business
(Rule 3.04, CPR)
D. ETHICAL – The lawyer can no longer be held
responsible for the action of his client. However,
it would be unethical if he knew about his client’s
intention to publish and he did not stop it.
UST BAR OPERATIONS
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
E. UNETHICAL – The announcement in a newspaper
that he will give free legal advice to the indigent,
is a form of self-praise [In Re: Tagorda, 53 Phil 37,
(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.
(1994, 1996, 2001 Bar)
All the partners have, by their joint and several efforts
over a period of years contributed to the goodwill
attached to the firm name. In the case of a firm having
widespread connections, this goodwill is disturbed by a
change in firm name every time a partner dies, and that
reflects a loss in some degree of the goodwill to the
building up of which the surviving partners have
contributed their time, skill and labor through a period
of years (CPR Annotated, PhilJA).
CANON 4. Participate in the improvement of the
legal system
CANON 5. Keep abreast of legal development and
participate in continuing legal education program
and assist in disseminating information regarding
the law and jurisprudence
CANON 6. Applicability of the CPR to lawyers in the
government service
Q: Atty. Advincula manifested in his compliance that
he had immediately accepted the resolution of the
IBP Board of Governors suspending him for two
months and that he had then gone ON LEAVE from
work in the NBI for two months starting in
November until the end of December 2012, and that
such leave from work involved refraining from
performing his duties as a Legal Officer of the NBI.
Will a leave of absence suffice?
A: NO. His supposed compliance with the
recommended two-month suspension could not be
satisfied by going on leave from his work at the NBI. His
being a government employee necessitates that his
suspension from practice of law should include his
suspension from office. A leave of absence will NOT
suffice. This is so considering that his position mandated
him to be a member of the Philippine Bar in good
standing. If the rule is different, this exercise of
reprobation of an erring lawyer by the Court is rendered
inutile and becomes a mockery because he can continue
to receive his salaries and other benefits by simply going
on leave for the duration of his suspension from the
practice of law (Advincula v. Atty. Advincula, A.C. No.
9226, June 14, 2016).
Instances when a former government lawyer may be
prohibited from accepting legal engagement: (1) A
lawyer shall not after leaving the government service
accept engagement or employment in connection with
any matter in which he had intervened while in said
service; or (2) Retired members of the judiciary
receiving pensions from the government should not
practice law where the government is the adverse party
or in a criminal case involving a government employee
in the performance of his duties as such.
Rule 6.01 – The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in
public prosecution is not to convict but to see that
6 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
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
Q: City Prosecutor Phillip prosecuted the criminal
case for the murder of the city mayor against the
accused Reynaldo, the losing mayoralty candidate.
There was no private prosecutor and Phillip
personally handled the prosecution of the case from
arraigriment up to the presentation of the evidence
for the accused. Before the trial, Alfonso approached
Phillip and confessed that he is the killer of the city
mayor and not Reynaldo. When the case was called
for trial, Phillip manifested before the court that
Alfonso approached him and admitted that he killed
the mayor and asked the court for whatever proper
action it may take. The counsel for the accused took
advantage of the presence of Alfonso, who was
placed on the witness stand and elicited testimonial
evidence. The court eventually acquitted Reynaldo.
The heirs of the city mayor filed a disbarment case
against Phillip on the ground that it is his duty to see
to it that the criminal is convicted and punished.
They believe Reynaldo is the real killer and Alfonso
was only a fall guy and that Reynaldo could not have
been acquitted were it not for the disclosure of
Phillip. Phillip argues that the City Prosecutor is not
for the offended party or the heirs of the victim but
it is his main duty that "justice be done." Did Phillip
commit any violation of the CPR? Explain. (2016
Bar)
A: Phillip did not commit any violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Rule 6.01 categorically
states that 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 establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for
disciplinary action." A public prosecutor is a
representative not an ordinary party in a controversy,
but of a sovereignty whose obligation govern impartially
is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all.
Instance where a private prosecutor may appear in
behalf of the State even without the presence or
supervision of a public prosecutor
In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor
or lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor
may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the
Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to
prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court.
Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the
private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case
up to end of the trial even in the absence of a public
prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise
withdrawn (Sec. 5, Rule 110, RRC as amended by A.M. No.
02-2-07-SC effective May 1, 2002).
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. (1992, 1993,
2001 Bar)
Adverse-interest Conflict vs. Congruent-interest
Conflict
ADVERSE-INTEREST CONGRUENT-
CONFLICTS INTEREST
REPRESENTATION
CONFLICTS
UST BAR OPERATIONS
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
Exist where the matter in The disqualification
which the former does not involve a
government lawyer conflict at all, because it
represents a client in prohibits the lawyer
private practice is from representing a
substantially related to private practice client
the matter that the lawyer even if the interests of
dealt with while the former government
employed by the client and the new client
government and the are entirely parallel.
interests of the
government and the
interests of the current
and former are adverse.
NOTE: “Congruent-interest representation conflict,”
unlike the “adverse-interest conflict,” is unique to
former government lawyers (PCGG v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005).
THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
CANON 7. At all times uphold integrity and dignity of
the profession and support the activities of the IBP
Membership dues are not prohibited by the
Constitution. The fee is imposed as a regulatory
measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the
purposes and objectives of the integration (In the Matter
of IBP Membership dues delinquency of Atty. Marcial
Edillon, A.M. No. 1928, August 3, 1978).
Effect of non-payment of dues
Default in the payment of annual dues for SIX (6)
MONTHS shall warrant suspension of membership in
the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for ONE
(1) YEAR shall be a ground for the removal of the name
of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys
(Sec. 10, Rule 139-A, RRC) subject to the requirement of
due process (Funa, 2009)
Q: In a complaint filed before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Cirilo Celis, a
senior citizen, it was shown that: a) he failed to pay
his IBP dues for six (6) years; b) he indicated
uniformly in his pleadings for three (3) consecutive
years "IBP Muntinlupa OR No. 12345" as proof of
payment of his IBP fees; and c) he did not indicate
any Professional Tax Receipt number to prove
payment of his professional dues. In his defense,
Atty. Celis alleged that he is only engaged in a
"limited" law practice, and his principal occupation,
as disclosed in his income tax return, is that of a
farmer of a 30-hectare orchard and pineapple farm
in Camarines Sur. He also claimed that he believed
in good faith that, as a senior citizen, he was exempt
from payment of taxes, such as income tax, under
Republic Act No. 7432 which grants senior citizens
"exemption from the payment of individual income
taxes provided that their annual taxable income
does not exceed the poverty level as determined by
the NEDA for that year."
As a member of the IBP Board of Governors, decide
on the following:
(a) the validity of his claim that, being engaged in
a limited practice of law and being a senior
citizen who is exempt from the payment of
taxes, he is not required to pay his IBP and
professional dues; (2.5%)
(b) the obligations, if any, under the Rules of
Court and the Code of Professional
Responsibility that Atty. Celis may have
7 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
violated. (2.5%)
A:
A. The claim is invalid. In accordance with Rule 139-A,
Atty. Celis can engage in the practice of law only by
paying his dues, and it does not matter that his practice
is "limited." The exemption under R.A. No. 7432 does not
include payment of membership or association dues
(Santos Jr. v. Llamas, A.C. No. 4749, January 20, 2000).
B. He violated Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Canon 10 and Rule
10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Celis admits that he has engaged in law practice
without having paid his IBP dues for six years. He
likewise admits that, as appearing in the pleadings, he
indicated "IBP Muntinlupa OR No. 12345" in the
pleadings he filed in court, at least for three years, thus
misrepresenting that such was his IBP chapter
membership and receipt number for the years in which
those pleadings were filed. By indicating "IBP
Muntinlupa OR No. 12345" in his pleadings and thereby
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had
paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, Atty. Celis is guilty
of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty.
Celis’ failure to pay his IBP dues and his
misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court
indeed merit the most severe penalty (Santos Jr. v.
Llamas, A.C. No. 4749, January 20, 2000).
NOTE: There is no such thing as retirement in the IBP as
understood in labor law. A lawyer, however, may
terminate his bar membership after filing the required
verified notice of termination with the Secretary of the
Integrated Bar (In Re: Atty. Jose Principe, Bar Matter No.
543, September 20, 1990).
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.
The concealment of an attorney in his application to take
the bar exams of the fact that he had been charged with
or indicted for an alleged crime, is ground for revocation
of his license to practice law (In re: Victorino Lanuevo,
A.M. No. 1162, August 29, 1975).
Honest mistake as excuse in making false statement
An honest mistake in making false statement may be a
valid excuse but the burden of proof lies on the one who
alleges it. On the other hand, to be liable for suppressing
a fact or information in the application, the suppression
must be:
1. Deliberately or knowingly made; and
2. The fact or information suppressed must be material
(CPR Annotated, PhilJA).
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in a 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. (2004 Bar)
A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only
required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the
keeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as
to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief
that he is flouting those moral standards (Zaguirre v.
Castillo, A.C. No. 4921, March 6, 2003).
CANON 8. Conduct himself with courtesy, fairness
and candor toward his colleagues and avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel
UST BAR OPERATIONS
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Instances of Lack of Candor (Honesty): (1)
Misquoting the contents of paper, testimony of a
witness, the language or the argument of opposing
counsel; or the language of the decision or a textbook;
(2) With knowledge of its invalidity, to cite as authority
a decision that has been overruled or a statute that has
been repealed, or in the argument to assert as a fact that
which has not been proved, or in those jurisdictions
where the side has the opening and closing arguments
to mislead his opponent by concealing or withholding
positions in his opening argument upon which his side
then intends to rely; (3) Offering evidence which he
knows the court should reject; or (4) Introducing into an
argument, addressed to the court, remarks or
statements intended to influence the bystanders
(Pineda, 2009).
Q: In an administrative case, Atty. Roque alleged that
he was the plaintiff's counsel in a civil case before
the METC. Shortly after securing a favorable
judgment for his client, Atty. Balbin—as counsel for
the defendant, and on appeal—started intimidating,
harassing, blackmailing, and maliciously
threatening Atty. Roque into withdrawing the case
filed by his client. According to Atty. Roque, Atty.
Balbin would make various telephone calls and send
text messages and e-mails not just to him, but also to
his friends and other clients, threatening to file
disbarment and/or criminal suits against him.
Further, and in view of Atty. Roque’s "high profile"
stature, Atty. Balbin also threatened to publicize
such suits in order to besmirch and/or destroy Atty.
Roque’s name and reputation. Should Atty. Balbin be
held administratively liable?
A: YES. Atty. Balbin’s underhanded tactics against Atty.
Roque were in violation of Canon 8 of the CPR. Instead
of availing of remedies to contest the ruling adverse to
his client, Atty. Balbin resorted to personal attacks
against the opposing litigant's counsel. Thus, it appears
that Atty. Balbin’s acts of repeatedly intimidating,
harassing, and blackmailing Atty. Roque with purported
administrative and criminal cases and prejudicial media
exposures were performed as a tool to return the
inconvenience suffered by his client. His actions
demonstrated a misuse of the legal processes available
to him and his client, especially considering that the aim
of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties
according to law, not to harass them. The foregoing
showed Atty. Balbin’s lack of respect and despicable
behavior towards a colleague in the legal profession, and
constituted conduct unbecoming of a member thereof
(Atty. Roque, Jr. v. Atty. Balbin, A.C. No. 7088, December 4,
2018, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: Atty. Orlando Ailes filed a complaint for damages
against his own brother, Marcelo, whom Atty. Noble
represented. One day, Atty. Noble discovered that,
through text messages, Atty. Ailes had been
maligning him and dissuading Marcelo from
retaining his services as counsel, claiming that he
was “polpol” and that he charged exorbitant fees,
among others. Records show that Atty. Ailes even
prepared a Notice to Terminate Services of Counsel
in the complaint for damages as well as a
Compromise Agreement, both of which he sent to
Marcelo for his signature. Atty. Ailes contends that
the text messages were "brother-to-brother
communication" and were uttered in good faith. Is
Atty. Ailes’ defense meritorious?
8 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
A: NO. Atty. Ailes violated the entire Canon 8 of the CPR.
It is inconsequential that the statements were merely
relayed to Atty. Ailes’ brother in private. As a member of
the bar, Atty. Ailes should have been more circumspect
in his words, being fully aware that they pertain to
another lawyer to whom fairness as well as candor is
owed. It was highly improper for Atty. Ailes to interfere
and insult Atty. Noble to his client (Atty. Noble III v. Atty.
Ailes, A.C. No. 10628, July 1, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive
or otherwise improper.
Instances of disrespectful language: (1) Categorizes
the Supreme Court decision as false, erroneous and
illegal; (2) Description of judges attitude as “unjust,
hostile, vindictive and dangerous.”; (3) Stating that
“justice is blind and also deaf and dumb.”; (4)
Attributing to the Supreme Court acts of dismissing
judges “without rhyme and reason” and disbarring
lawyers “without due process.”; (5) Calling an adverse
counsel as “bobo” or using the word “ay que bobo” in
reference to the manner of offering evidence; (6) Calling
an adverse counsel as “polpol” (Noble III v. Atty. Ailes,
A.C. No. 10628, July 1, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE); and
(7) Any other analogous cases.
Criticism
Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or
wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of the decision of
the court in a pending case made in good faith may be
tolerated; but to hurl the false charge that the Supreme
Court has been committing deliberately so many
blunders and injustices would tend necessarily to
undermine the confidence of the people in the honesty
and integrity of its members, and consequently to lower
or degrade the administration of justice, and it
constitutes contempt (Ilusorio v. Ilusorio, G.R. No.
157384, June 5, 2009).
NOTE: Lack of want of intention is no excuse for the
disrespectful language employed. (Rheem of the
Philippines v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979, January 27, 1967).
CRITICISM INSULT
Confined to the facts Pass beyond that line and
and is based on the charge that judicial
decisions of the court. conduct was influenced by
improper, corrupt, or
selfish motives, or that
such conduct was affected
by political prejudice or
interest, the tendency is to
create distrust and destroy
the confidence of the
people in their courts.
A criticism after a case An insult hurled to the
has been disposed of court, even after a case is
can no longer influence decided, can under no
the court, and on that circumstance be justified
ground it does not (Ilusorio v. Ilusorio, G.R. No.
constitute contempt 157384, June 5, 2009).
(Ilusorio v. Ilusorio, G.R.
No. 157384, June 5,
2009).
Q: Atty. Villagracia sent Spouses Nuezca a demand
letter, copy furnished to various offices and persons,
which contained not only threatening but also
libelous utterances. Allegedly, the demand letter
UST BAR OPERATIONS
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
seriously maligned and ridiculed complainants to
its recipients. It also imputed crimes against them,
i.e., that they were criminally liable for worthless or
bum checks and estafa. Further, they posited that
several news clippings that were attached to the
demand letter were intended to sow tear in them. Is
Atty. Villagracia administratively liable?
A: YES. Atty. Villagracia violated Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of
the CPR which provides that a lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper. Respondent's use of
demeaning and immoderate language put complainants
in shame and disgrace. Moreover, it is important to
consider that several other persons had been copy
furnished with the demand letter. As such, respondent
could have besmirched complainants' reputation to its
recipients (Nuezca v. Atty. Villagracia, A.C. No. 8210,
August 08, 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: The Facebook remarks by Atty. Guevarra called
Belo-Henares a “quack doctor,” “Reyna ng
Kaplastikan,” “Reyna ng Payola,” and “Reyna ng
Kapalpakan,” and insinuating that she has been
bribing people to destroy Atty. Guevarra. Atty.
Guevarra also ascribed criminal negligence upon
Belo-Henares and BMGI by posting that Belo-
Henares disfigured (“binaboy”) his client Norcio,
labeling BMGI a “Frankenstein Factory,” and calling
out a boycott of BMGI’s services all these despite the
pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had
already filed against Belo-Henares. He even
threatened Belo-Henares with conviction for
criminal negligence and estafa. In defense, Atty.
Guevarra claimed that the complaint was filed in
violation of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to
privacy, asserting that the posts quoted by Belo-
Henares were private remarks on his private
account on Facebook, meant to be shared only with
his circle of friends of which Belo-Henares was not a
part. Should Atty. Guevarra be held administratively
liable based on the allegations of the verified
complaint?
A: YES. The defense of the Atty. Guevarra is untenable.
Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or
her online social networking activity, it is first necessary
that said user manifests the intention to keep certain
posts private, through the employment of measures to
prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. Here, Atty.
Guevarra’s inappropriate and obscene language, and his
act of publicly insulting and undermining the reputation
of Belo-Henares through the Facebook posts are in
complete and utter violation of the following provisions
in the CPR. By posting the remarks on Facebook directed
at Belo-Henares and BMGI, Atty. Guevarra’s disregarded
the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper
decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He
overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner
befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm,
and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and
rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of the
law, and conducted himself in an aggressive way by
hurling insults and maligning Belo-Henares’ and BMGI’s
reputation (Belo-Henares v. Atty. Guevarra, A.C. No.
11394, December 1, 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE).
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 (1995, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2006
9 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
Bar)
XPNs:
1. A lawyer may properly interview any witness or
prospective witness or prospective witness for the
opposing side in any civil or criminal action without
the consent of opposing counsel or party; and
2. Any person who seeks relief against an unfaithful or
neglectful lawyer may approach another lawyer for
proper advice and assistance. Any advice or
assistance extended after proper verification is not
encroaching upon the business of another lawyer
for such act is justified under the circumstances.
NOTE: A person without a retained lawyer is a
legitimate prospective client for any lawyer whom he
approaches for legal services. But, as soon as he had
retained one and had not dismissed the retained
counsel, efforts on the part of another lawyer to take him
as client constitutes an act of encroaching upon the
employment of another lawyer.
CANON 9. Not to directly or indirectly assist in the
unauthorized practice of law
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member
of the bar in good standing.
The qualifications to be a lawyer are personal and the
Bar is an exclusive group of professionals who possess
the requisite qualifications and for whom defined
functions are reserved. To delegate the functions would
violate the rationale behind reserving defined functions
exclusively for those who are admitted to the bar (Ulep
v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., B.M. No. 553, June 17, 1993).
Although the authority of a lawyer to represent a client
cannot be delegated to an unqualified person, it does not
follow however that the retained lawyer is automatically
authorized to make such delegation to a qualified person
because a client-lawyer relationship is personal (CPR
Annotated, PhilJA).
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to
divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law.
XPNs:
1. 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 to persons specified in the
agreement (Rule 9.02, second par., Canon 9, CPR); or
2. Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished
legal business of a deceased lawyer (Rule 9.02, third
par., Canon 9, CPR); or
3. Where a lawyer or law firm includes a non-lawyer
employee in a retirement plan, even if the plan is
based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing
agreement (Rule 9.02, fourth par., Canon 9, CPR).
NOTE: The interest promoted by the prohibition is that
the independence of the professional judgment of a
lawyer, which the client is paying for, could be at risk if
a non-lawyer has direct rights to share in the legal fees
resulting from the exercise of such professional
judgment (CPR Annotated, PhilJA).
Q: Engr. Tumbokon referred a case for partition of
the estate of the late Benjamin Yap to Atty. Pefianco.
It was agreed in writing that Rufino would receive
ten (10) percent of the attorney’s fees to be received
by Atty. Pefianco. However, when the fees were
already paid, Pefianco refused to pay, stating in a
UST BAR OPERATIONS
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
letter that the spouses will be the one to shoulder his
commission. Rufino filed a disbarment case against
Pefianco. Should Atty. Pefianco be disciplined?
A: YES, it is clear that Atty. Pefianco violated Rule 9.02,
Canon 9. By stipulating that Rufino will be entitled to a
commission from his attorney’s fees, Atty. Pefianco
entered into an agreement to divide the fee with a
person not licensed to practice law (Tumbokon v.
Pefianco, A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012, PERLAS-
BERNABE).
Q: You had just taken your oath as a new lawyer. The
secretary of a big university offered to get you as the
university's notary public. She explained that the
faculty and students would be sent to you to have
their documentations and affidavits notarized; and
that the arrangement would be very lucrative for
you. However, the secretary wants you to share with
her half of your earnings throughout the year. Will
you agree to the arrangement proposed by the
secretary of the university? Explain your answer.
(2017 Bar)
A: No, I will not agree to the arrangement. The
arrangement will be violative of Rule 9.02. The secretary
of the university is not licensed to practice law. Hence, I
cannot validly share my earnings as a notary public with
him.
THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
CANON 10. Owes candor, fairness and good faith to
the court
As officers of the court, lawyers have the primary
obligation towards the administration of justice. To
mislead the court is contumacious and clearly a ground
for disciplinary action (Antiquiera, CPR).
Q: Dongga-as engaged the law firm of Atty. Cruz-
Angeles to handle the annulment of his marriage
with his wife, Mutya. In connection therewith, Atty.
Cruz-Angeles was paid the aggregate sum of
₱350,000 representing legal fees. Dongga-as
constantly followed-up his case. However, despite
the passage of more than five (5) months from the
engagement, Atty. Cruz-Angeles could not present
any petition and instead, offered excuses for the
delay. They failed to file the appropriate pleading
before the proper court and could not even show a
finished draft of such pleading. Moreover, Atty.
Cruz-Angeles misrepresented that the delay in the
filing of petition because they were still looking for
a “friendly” court, judge, and prosecutor. Is Atty.
Cruz-Angeles guilty of any ethical misconduct?
A: YES. Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he
is duty-bound toserve the latter with competence, and
to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and
devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He
owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed upon him.
Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted
to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence
for which he must be held administratively liable, as in
this case. As members of the Bar, respondents should
not perform acts that would tend to undermine and/or
denigrate the integrity of the courts, such as insinuating
that they can find a "friendly" court and judge that will
ensure a favorable ruling in complainant's annulment
case. It is their sworn duty as lawyers and officers of the
court to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts.
Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of the
10
judicial institution. Without this guarantee, the
institution would be resting on shaky foundations. In
this case, respondents compromised the integrity not
only of the judiciary, but also of the national
prosecutorial service, by insinuating that they can
influence a court, judge, and prosecutor to cooperate
with them to ensure the annulment of complainant's
marriage (Dongga-as v. Atty. Cruz-Angeles et. al., A.C. No.
11113, August 9, 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE).
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 must be a disciple of truth. He should bear in
mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is
to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts
of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at a
correct conclusion. The courts on the other hand are
entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers
appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has
the solemn duty to defend his client’s cause, his conduct
must never be at the expense of truth (Young v.
Batuegas, A.C. No. 5379, May 9, 2003).
Examples of falsehood: (1) Lawyers falsely stating in a
deed of sale that property is free from all liens and
encumbrances when it is not so; (2) Lawyers making it
appear that a person, long dead, executed a deed of sale
in his favor; (3) Lawyer encashing a check payable to a
deceased cousin by signing the latter’s name on the
check; (4) Lawyer falsified a power of attorney and used
it in collecting the money due to the principal and
appropriated the money for his own benefit; (5) Lawyer
alleging in one pleading that his clients were merely
lessees of the property involved, and alleged in a later
pleading that the same clients were the owners of the
same property where there are false allegations in the
pleadings; (6) Lawyer uttering falsehood in a Motion to
Dismiss; (7) Lawyer denying having received the notice
to file brief which is belied by the return card; (8)
Lawyer presenting falsified documents in court which
he knows to be false (Berenguer v. Carranza, A.C. No. 716,
January 30, 1969; Umaguing v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No.
10451, February 4, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE); (9) Lawyer
filing false charges or groundless suits; and (10) Lawyer
making untruthful and false statements before the court.
Q: Spouses Umaguing lodged an election protest and
enlisted the services of Atty. De Vera, who rushed
the preparation of the necessary documents and
attachments. Two (2) of these attachments are the
Affidavits of material witnesses Lachica and Almera,
which were personally prepared by Atty. De Vera. At
the time that the aforesaid affidavits were needed to
be signed by Lachica and Almera, they were
unfortunately unavailable. To remedy this, Atty. De
Vera had the nearest kin or relatives of Lachica and
Almera to sign over the names. Later, however,
Lachica discovered the falsification and
immediately disowned the signature affixed in the
affidavit and submitted his own Affidavit, declaring
that he did not authorize the signing of the
document on his behalf. Is Atty. De Vera
Administratively liable?
A: YES. Atty. De Vera is found guilty of violating the
Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR by
submitting a falsified document before a court. In his
dealings with his client and with the courts, every
lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with integrity,
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
and trustworthy. These expectations, though high and
demanding, are the professional and ethical burdens of
every member of the Philippine Bar, for they have been
given full expression in the Lawyer’s Oath that every
lawyer of this country has taken upon admission as a
bona fide member of the Law Profession (Sps. Umaguing
v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 10451, February 4, 2015,
PERLAS-BERNABE).
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote
or misrepresent the contents of the 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.
NOTE: They should be verbatim reproductions of the
Supreme Courts decisions, down to the last word and
punctuation mark (Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.,
Employees Association v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.,
G.R. No. L-25291, January 30,1971).
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 filed multiple or repetitive
actions subject themselves to disciplinary action for
incompetence or willful violation of their duties as
attorneys to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and
to maintain only such actions that appear to be just and
consistent with truth and honor (Olivares etc. v. Atty.
Villalon Jr., A.C. No. 6323, April 13, 2007).
Instances when lawyers can be disciplined based on
the pleadings they filed: When a counsel
deliberately: (1) Files an unsigned pleading in violation
of the rules; (2) Alleges scandalous matters therein; or
(3) Fails to promptly report to the court a change of his
address.
CANON 11. Observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts and judicial officers and should insist on
similar conduct by others
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly
attired.
Q: Atty. Jesus Falcis appeared in a preliminary
conference before the Supreme Court wearing a
casual jacket, cropped jeans, and loafers without
socks. Did Atty. Falcis commit any ethical
impropriety?
A: YES. Atty. Falcis is reminded of the requirement
under Canon 11 of the CPR for lawyers to “observe and
maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial
officers and to insist on similar conduct by others.” This
duty encompasses appearances before courts in proper
attire. This Court does not insist on sartorial pomposity.
It does not prescribe immutable minutiae for physical
appearance. Still, Professional courtesy demands that
persons, especially lawyers, having business before
courts, act with discretion and manifest this discretion
in their choice of apparel (Atty. Falcis III v. Civil Registrar
General, G.R. No. 217910, July 3, 2018).
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
11
Q: An administrative case for disbarment was filed
against MDS, a Lady Senator, for uttering offensive
remarks in her privilege speech delivered in the
Senate floor. She was quoted as saying that
she wanted “to spit on the face of Chief Justice and
his cohorts in the Supreme Court,” and calling the
Court a “Supreme Court of idiots.” She alleged that it
was considered as part of her parliamentary
immunity as such was done during the session. Is
she correct?
A: YES. Her statements, being part of her privilege
speech as a member of Congress, were covered by the
constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity.
Her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a
disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court.
However, as a member of the Bar, the Court wishes to
express its deep concern about the language Senator
MDS used in her speech and its effect on the
administration of justice. To the Court, the lady senator
has undoubtedly crossed the limits of decency and good
professional conduct. No lawyer who has taken an oath
to maintain the respect due to the courts should be
allowed to erode the people’s faith in the judiciary. In
this case, the lady senator clearly violated Canon 8, Rule
8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Pobre v. Senator Santiago, A.C. No. 7399,
August 25, 2009).
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge
motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
An administrative complaint is not an appropriate
remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as
a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for
certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted
with fraud, malice, or dishonesty (Santiago III v. Justice
Enriquez, Jr., A.M. No. CA-09-47-J, February 13, 2009).
CANON 12. Duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice
The filing of another action concerning the same subject
matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs
contrary to this Canon (Lim v. Montano, A.C. No. 5653,
February 27, 2006).
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions
arising from the same cause. (1991, 1997, 1998,
2002 Bar)
NOTE: If same evidence supports both actions, there is
also forum shopping.
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. (2003 Bar)
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court
processes.
Q: An administrative case is filed against Atty.
Balbin. Atty. Balbin initially moved for an extension
of time to file comment but did not file the same
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
prompting the Supreme Court to repeatedly fine him
and order his arrest. What did Atty. Balbin violate, if
any?
A: He violated Canon 11, Canon 12, Rule 12.03, and Rule
12.04 of the CPR, and caused undue delay in the
resolution of this administrative case. His acts not only
indicated a high degree of irresponsibility, but also
constituted utter disrespect to the judicial institution.
The orders of the Court are not to be construed as a mere
request, nor should they be complied with partially,
inadequately, or selectively; and the obstinate refusal or
failure to comply therewith not only betrays a
recalcitrant flaw in the lawyer's character, but also
underscores his disrespect to the lawful orders of the
Court which is only too deserving of reproof (Atty.
Roque, Jr. v. Atty. Balbin, A.C. No. 7088, December 4, 2018,
PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: BPI and LSDC had a Joint Venture Agreement.
LSDC misrepresented to have ownership over the
lots sold and failed to deliver the title to the buyers.
BPI filed a complaint against the LSDC for
termination of contract, recovery of property and
damages, with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and
a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction before
the RTC. With Atty. Deloria as counsel, LSDC filed an
answer with counterclaim and a prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction to direct BPI to execute the deeds of
absolute sale and release the titles to the lot buyers.
However, LSDC's application for a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction was denied.
Representing Corazon Flores, a lot buyer, Atty.
Deloria filed a complaint for execution of deeds of
absolute sale and delivery of title against BPI before
the HLURB. Should Atty. Deloria be administratively
liable?
A: YES. Atty. Deloria violated Rule 12.02, Canon 12 of the
CPR on forum shopping when he lodged a complaint
before the HLURB praying for BPI to execute deeds of
absolute sale and deliver the titles over the subdivided
lots, which was the same subject matter in the
preliminary mandatory injunction earlier denied by the
RTC while the main civil case was still pending (Buena
Vista Properties v. Atty. Deloria, A.C. No. 12160, August 14,
2018, PERLAS-BERNABE).
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.
Q: May an attorney talk to his witnesses before and
during the trial? (2014 Bar)
A: An attorney can talk with his witnesses before the
trial, but it is unethical to do so if the client is already on
the witness stand during the trial (Agpalo, 2009).
NOTE: Although the law does not forbid an attorney to
be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a case,
the courts prefer that counsel should not testify as a
witness unless it is necessary and that they should
withdraw from the active management of the case (PNB
v. Uy Teng Piao, G.R. No. L- 35252, October 21, 1932).
GR: A lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness
(Santiago v. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004).
XPN: In certain cases pertaining to privileged
communication arising from an attorney-client
relationship (Santiago v. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, October
5, 2004).
12
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf
of his client.
Matters to which a lawyer CANNOT testify on:
[TARCC]
1. When, as an attorney, he is to Testify on the theory
of the case;
2. When such would Adversely affect any lawful
interest of the client with respect to which
confidence has been reposed on him;
3. Having accepted a Retainer, he cannot be a witness
against his client;
4. He cannot serve Conflicting interests; and
5. When he is to violate the Confidence of his client.
Matters to which a lawyer CAN testify on: [FETAD]
1. On Formal matters, such as the mailing,
authentication or custody of instrument and the
like;
2. Acting as an Expert on his fee;
3. 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;
4. Acting as an Arbitrator; and
5. Deposition.
CANON 13. Rely upon the merits of his cause, refrain
from any impropriety which tends to influence
courts, or give the appearance of influencing the
courts
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.
Principle of Sub judice (2007 Bar)
Sub judice is defined as, "under or before a judge or
court; under judicial consideration; undetermined"
(Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990). The sub
judice rule restricts comments and disclosures
pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to avoid
prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or
obstructing the administration of justice (Marantan v.
Diokno, G.R. No. 205956, February 12, 2014).
Q: Cacai, a law student, filed an administrative
complaint against RTC Judge Casimiro Conde, her
professor in law school, based on the following
allegations:
(a) In a school convocation where Judge Conde
was the guest speaker, Judge Conde openly
disagreed and criticized a recently-decided
Supreme Court decision and even stressed
that the decision of the Supreme Court in
that case was a serious violation of the
Constitution.
(b) In his class discussions, Judge Conde named
Cacai's mother, an MTC judge, as one of the
judges involved in a marriage scam. At that
time, the case against her mother was still
pending. Judge Conde also included in his
class discussion Cacai's brother whom he
referred to as a "court-noted drug addict."
Cacai asserted that the acts of Judge Conde were
open displays of insensitivity, impropriety, and lack
of delicadeza bordering on oppressive and abusive
conduct. She also alleged that Judge Conde acted
with absolute disrespect for the Court and violated
the "sub judice rule" when he discussed the
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
marriage scam involving her mother because, at
that time, the case was still pending. In his defense,
Judge Conde argued that the case he discussed in the
school convocation was already of public knowledge
and had been published after it had become final. He
also said it was part of his academic freedom to
openly discuss and criticize a decision of the Court
since it was already decided with finality, was
patently erroneous, and clearly a violation of the
Constitution. With respect to discussions in class
about Cacai's mother, he said that the marriage scam
where her mother was charged scandalized the
Judiciary and became public knowledge when the
Office of the Court Administrator held a press
conference on the matter and, that as a citizen, he
could comment thereon in the exercise of his rights
to freedom of speech and expression. He also
asserted that his discussions in both fora could not
be the subject of an administrative complaint
because they were not done in the performance of
his judicial duties. Rule on each of the charges raised
by Cacai, and the corresponding defenses raised by
Judge Conde. (2018 Bar)
A: In the school convocation, Judge Conde insulted the
Court. The use of unnecessary language and means is
proscribed if we are to promote high esteem in the
courts and trust in judicial administration. Respondent's
reckless behavior of imputing ill motives and malice to
the Court's process is plainly evident in the present case.
His public statements incontrovertibly brings the Court
in a position of disrepute and disrespect, a patent
transgression of the very ethics that members of the Bar
are sworn to uphold (Re: Show Cause Order v. Sereno,
A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018). Mere criticism or
comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness
or unsoundness of the decision of the court in a pending
case made in good faith may be tolerated; but to hurl the
false charge that the Supreme Court has been
committing deliberately so many blunders and
injustices would tend necessarily to undermine the
confidence of the people in the honesty and integrity of
its members, and consequently to lower or degrade the
administration of justice, and it constitutes contempt
(Ilusorio v. Ilusorio, G.R. No. 157384, June 5, 2009). In the
class discussions, Judge Conde violated the sub judice
rule. The sub judice rule restricts comments and
disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in
order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the
court, or obstructing the administration of justice
(Marantan v. Diokno, G.R. No. 205956, February 12,
2014). When Judge Conde discussed the marriage scams,
the investigation relative to the said case had not yet
been concluded. He still could not make comments on
the administrative case to prevent any undue influence
in its resolution. Commenting on the marriage scams
was in contravention of the sub judice rule (Tormis vs.
Judge Paredes, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2366, February 4, 2015).
THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT
Characteristics of attorney-client relationship
1. Strictly personal – Prohibits the delegation of work
without the client’s consent
2. Highly confidential
a. Communication made in the course of lawyers
professional employment; and
b. Communication intended to be confidential.
3. Fiduciary
a. Hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession;
b. When a lawyer enforces a charging lien against
13
his client, the relationship is terminated; and
c. An attorney cannot represent adverse interest
unless the parties consent to the representation
after full disclosure of facts.
Commencement of attorney-client relationship
Case law instructs that a lawyer-client relationship
commences when a lawyer signifies his agreement to
handle a client's case and accepts money representing
legal fees from the latter (Samonte v. Atty. Jumamil, A.C.
No. 11668, July 17, 2017, PERLAS-BERNABE).
NOTE: The absence of a written contract will not
preclude a finding that there is a professional
relationship. Documentary formalism is not an essential
element in the employment of an attorney; the contract
may be express or implied (Toledo v. Callos, A.M. No. RTJ-
05-1900, January 28, 2005).
Three principal types of professional activity of a
lawyer: [LAP]
1. Legal advice and instructions to clients to inform
them of their rights and obligations;
2. Appearance for clients before public tribunals which
possess power and authority to determine rights of
life, liberty, and property according to law, in order
to assist in proper interpretation and enforcement of
law; and
3. Preparation for clients of documents requiring
knowledge of legal principles not possessed by
ordinary layman (CPR Annotated, PhilJA).
NOTE: A client who employs a law firm engages the
entire law firm; hence, the resignation, retirement or
separation from the law firm of the handling lawyer
does not terminate the relationship, because the law
firm is bound to provide a replacement (Rilloraza, Africa,
De Ocampo and Africa v. Eastern Telecommunication
Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 104600, July 2, 1999).
CANON 14. Not to refuse his services to the needy
Lawyer’s right to decline employment
GR: A lawyer is not obliged to act as legal counsel for any
person who may wish to become his client. He has the
right to decline employment (Navarro v. Meneses III, A.C.
No. 313, January 30, 1998)
XPNs:
1. A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy
(Canon 14);
2. He shall not decline to represent a person solely on
account of the latter’s race, sex, creed or status in life
or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of
said person (Rule 14.01);
3. He shall not decline, except for serious and efficient
cause like:
a. If he is not in a position to carryout effectively or
competently; and
b. If he labors under a conflict of interest between
him and the prospective client (Rule 14.03).
Q: Are there instances where a lawyer has the duty
to decline employment? (1993 Bar)
A: A lawyer should decline no matter how attractive the
fee offered may be if its acceptance will involve:
[RACCAA]
1. A violation of any of the Rules of the legal
profession;
2. Advocacy in any manner in which he had intervened
while in the government service;
3. Nullification of a Contract which he prepared;
4. Employment with a Collection agency which solicits
business to collect claims;
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
5. Employment, the nature of which might easily be
used as a means of Advertising his professional
services of his skill; or
6. Any matter in which he knows or has reason to
believe that he or his partner will be an essential
witness for the prospective client.
A counsel de officio must take the case not as a burden
but as an opportunity to assist in the proper
dispensation of justice. No lawyer is to be excused from
this responsibility except only for the most compelling
and cogent reasons.
Grounds of refusal of appointment to be a Counsel de
Oficio:
1. Too many de officio cases assigned to the lawyer
(People v. Daeng, G.R. No. L-34091, January 30, 1973);
2. Conflict of interest (Rule 14.03, CPR);
3. Lawyer is not in a position to carry out the work
effectively or competently (supra);
4. Lawyer is prohibited from practicing law by reason
of his public office which prohibits appearances in
court;
5. Lawyer is preoccupied with too many cases which
will spell prejudice to the new clients;
6. Health reasons; and
7. Extensive travel abroad.
CANON 15. Observe candor, fairness and loyalty in
all his dealings and transactions with clients
Rule 15.02 - A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on
privilege communication in respect of matters
disclosed to him by a prospective client. (2008 Bar)
Requisites of privileged communication: [APC]
1. There is 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; and
3. The communication must be intended to be
Confidential.
Disclosure of a prospective client
Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are
protected by the rule on privileged communication even
if the prospective client does not thereafter retain the
lawyer or the latter declines the employment. It covers
crimes and offenses already committed by the client
(Mercado v. Vitriolo, A.C. No. 5108, May 26, 2005)
Coverage of the attorney-client privilege
1. Lawyer;
2. Client; and
3. Third persons who by reason of their work have
acquired information about the case being handled
such as:
a. Attorney’s secretary, stenographer and clerk;
b. Interpreter, messengers and agents
transmitting communication; and
c. An accountant, scientist, physician, engineer
who has been hired for effective consultation
(Sec. 24(b), Rule 130, RRC)
Duration of privileged communication
The privilege continues to exist even after the
termination of the attorney-client relationship (Mercado
v. Vitriolo, A.C. No. 5108, May 26, 2005).
Client identity
GR: A lawyer may not invoke privileged communication
14
to refuse revealing a client’s identity.
XPNs:
1. When there is a strong possibility that revealing the
client’s name would implicate the client in the
activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice;
2. When disclosure would open the client to civil
liability; or
3. When the government’s lawyers have no case
against an attorney’s client and revealing the client’s
name would furnish the only link that would come
from the chain of testimony necessary to convict
him (Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938,
September 20, 1996).
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.
GR: An attorney cannot represent diverse interests. It is
highly improper to represent both sides of an issue. The
proscription against representation of conflicting
interest finds application where the conflicting interest
arise with respect to the same general matter and is
applicable however slight such adverse interest may be.
It applies although the attorney’s intention and motives
were honest and he acted in good faith.
XPN: Representation of conflicting interest may be
allowed where the parties consent to the representation
after full disclosure of facts (Nakpil v. Valdez, A.C. No.
2040, March 4, 1998; Orola v. Atty. Ramos, A.C. No. 9860;
September 11, 2013, PERLAS-BERNABE).
NOTE: A lawyer may at a certain stage of the
controversy and before it reaches the court represent
conflicting interests with the express written consent of
all parties concerned given after disclosure of the facts
(Rule 15.03, CPR; Canon 6, CPR). The disclosure should
include an explanation of the effects of the dual
representation, such as the possible revelation or use of
confidential information (Nakpil v. Valdez, A.C. No. 2040,
March 4, 1998; Orola v. Atty. Ramos, A.C. No. 9860;
September 11, 2013, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Instances when lawyers cannot represent
conflicting interest even if the consent of both
clients were secured
Where the conflict is:
1. Between the attorney’s interest and that of a client;
or
2. Between a private client’s interests and that of the
government or any of its instrumentalities.
Three tests to determine existence of conflict of
interest
1. Conflicting Duties - When, on behalf of one client, it
is the attorney’s duty to contest for that which his
duty to another client requires him to oppose or
when possibility of such situation will develop.
2. Invitation of Suspicion - Whether the acceptance
of the new relation will prevent a lawyer from the
full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to his client or will invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance thereof.
3. Use of Prior Knowledge Obtained - Whether a
lawyer will be called upon in his new relation to use
against the first client any knowledge acquired in
the previous employment.
Instances of conflict of interest
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
1. A v. B
A and B are present clients.
2. C v. D; E v. D
C is the present client and D is not a present client in
the same case but is a present client in another case.
3. F v. G; H v. G
F is the present client and G was a former client and
the cases are related.
4. I v. J; K v. J
I is the present client and J was a former client in a case
that is unrelated.
5. L, M, N v. O, P, Q
L, M, N are present clients but L and M joins O, P, Q.
Other instances of conflict of interest: (1) A corporate
lawyer cannot join a labor union of employees in that
corporation; (2) A lawyer of an insurance corporation
who investigated an accident cannot represent the
complainant/injured person; (3) As a receiver of a
corporation, he cannot represent the creditor; (4) As a
representative of the obligor, he cannot represent the
obligee; (5) As a lawyer representing a party in a
compromise agreement, he cannot, subsequently, be a
lawyer representing another client who seeks to nullify
the agreement; and (6) A lawyer of a lawfirm cannot
represent an opposing party of a former client of
another lawyer of the same lawfirm (Anglo v. Atty.
Valencia et. al, A.C. No. 10567, February 25, 2015,
PERLAS-BERNABE).
Lawfirms must organize and implement a system to
keep track of all cases assigned to its handling
lawyers
It ensures that every engagement it accepts stands clear
of any potential conflict of interest. As an organization of
individual lawyers which, engaged as a collective,
assigns legal work to a corresponding handling lawyer,
it behooves the law firm to value coordination in
deference to the conflict of interest rule. Lack of
coordination intolerably renders its clients’ secrets
vulnerable to undue and even adverse exposure,
eroding in the balance the lawyer-client relationship’s
primordial ideal of unimpaired trust and confidence
(Anglo v. Atty. Valencia et. al, A.C. No. 10567, February 25,
2015, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Being a counsel-of-record of the other party is not a
requisite to be guilty of representing conflicting
interests
To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a
counsel-of-record of one party need not also be counsel-
of-record of the adverse party. He does not have to
publicly hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party,
nor make his efforts to advance the adverse party's
conflicting interests of record—although these
circumstances are the most obvious and satisfactory
proof of the charge. It is enough that the counsel of one
party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of
the other party, claiming adverse and conflicting
interests with that of his original client. To require that
he also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party would
punish only the most obvious form of deceit and reward,
with impunity, the highest form of disloyalty (Artueza v.
Atty. Maderazo, A.C. No. 4354, April 22, 2002).
Q: BPI and LSDC had a Joint Venture Agreement.
LSDC misrepresented to have ownership over the
lots sold and failed to deliver the title to the buyers.
Atty. Deloria represented Menguito, the President of
LSDC, in a criminal case for estafa filed by Spouses
Corazon and Roberto Flores, while he filed a
15
complaint for delivery of title against BPI on behalf
of Corazon Flores before the HLURB. Should Atty.
Deloria be administratively liable?
A: YES. Atty. Deloria violated Rules 15.01 and 15.03 of
Canon 15. Atty. Deloria simultaneously represented
Menguito and Corazon despite their conflicting
interests, considering that Corazon's estafa case against
Menguito was premised on the latter's and LSDC's
alleged misrepresentation of ownership over the lots
sold and LSDC's eventual failure to deliver the title.
Thus, Atty. Deloria's simultaneous representation of
Menguito and Corazon sans their written consent after a
full disclosure of the facts violated the rules on conflict
of interest (Buena Vista Properties v. Atty. Deloria, A.C.
No. 12160, August 14, 2018, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Rule 15.04 - A lawyer may, with the written consent
of all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or
arbitrator in setting the disputes.
Q: Atty. Ramos was collaborating counsel for Heirs
of Antonio Orola in seeking the removal of Emilio as
administrator, then he entered his appearance as
collaborating counsel for Emilio to seek his
reinstatement as administrator. He was able to
secure consent some of the Heirs of Antonio. The
other Heirs of Antonio filed a disbarment complaint
against him. Atty. Ramos contended that he had no
knowledge of the fact that the late Antonio had other
heirs and asserted that no information was
disclosed to him by Maricar, one of the heirs. He
clarified that his representation for Emilio in the
subject case was more of a mediator, rather than a
litigator. Is Atty. Ramos’ contention valid?
A: NO. There is an absolute prohibition from
representation with respect to opposing parties in the
same case. His previous appearances for and in behalf of
the Heirs of Antonio was only a friendly accommodation
cannot equally be given any credence since the rule
holds even if the inconsistency is remote or merely
probable or even if the lawyer has acted in good faith
and with no intention to represent conflicting interests.
Neither can his asseveration that his engagement by
Emilio was more of a mediator than a litigator and for
the purpose of forging a settlement among the family
members render the rule inoperative. In fact, Rule 15.04,
Canon 15 of the Code similarly requires the lawyer to
obtain the written consent of all concerned before he
may act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling
disputes. Atty. Ramos was remiss in his duty to make a
full disclosure of his impending engagement as Emilio’s
counsel to all the Heirs of Antonio – particularly, Karen
– and equally secure their express written consent
before consummating the same. Besides, it must be
pointed out that a lawyer who acts as such in settling a
dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it (Orola
v. Atty. Ramos, A.C. No. 9860; September 11, 2013,
PERLAS-BERNABE).
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.
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 the principles of
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
fairness.
Q: Atty. Flordeliza Jimeno signed a Deed of Absolute
Sale to Aquino as attorney-in-fact of Geronimo Sr.
even though she knew that Geronimo Sr. merely co-
owns the property with his children because of the
death of his wife, Perla. Should Atty. Jimeno be
administratively liable?
A: YES. Instead of advising the Geronimo Sr. to settle the
estate of Perla to enable the proper registration of the
property in their names preliminary to the sale to
Aquino, she voluntarily signed the subject deed, as
attorney-in-fact of Geronimo Sr., despite the patent
irregularities in its execution. Despite being aware that
something was amiss with the documents of sale, Atty.
Jimeno allowed herself to become a party to the subject
deed which contained falsehood and/or inaccuracies in
violation of her duties as a lawyer. The act of Atty.
Jimeno in affixing her signature on a deed of sale
containing falsehood and/or inaccuracies constitutes
malpractice and gross misconduct in her office as
attorney (Jimeno v. Atty. Jimeno, A.C. No. 12012, July 02,
2018, PERLAS-BERNABE).
CANON 16. Hold in trust all the moneys and property
of his client that may come to his possession
Mundo v. Capistrano, A.C. No. 6903, April 16, 2012,
PERLAS-BERNABE).
Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each
client separate and apart from his own and those
of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and
may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall
also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments
and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
Elements for the exercise of retaining lien: [ALU]
1. Attorney-client relationship;
2. Lawful possession by the lawyer of the client’s
funds, documents and papers in his professional
capacity; and
3. Unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees or
disbursements (Miranda v. Atty. Carpio, A.C. No.
6281, September 26, 2011; Ampil v. Judge Agrava,
G.R. No. L-27394, July 31, 1970).

Under Article 1491 of the Civil Code, lawyers Elements for exercise of charging lien: [ASMoCAR]
cannot acquire or purchase, even at public or judicial 1. Attorney-client relationship;
auction, either in person or through the mediation of 2. Legal Services was rendered;
another the property and rights which may be the object 3. Favorable Money judgment secured by the counsel
of any litigation in which they take part by virtue of their for his client;
profession. 4. The attorney has a Claim for Attorney’s fees or
NOTE: This prohibition is entirely independent of fraud advances; and
and such need not be alleged or proven. Art. 1491 (5) of 5. A statement of the claim has been duly Recorded in
the NCC applies only if the sale or assignment of the the case with notice thereof served upon the client
property takes place during the pendency of the and the adverse party.
litigation involving the client’s property (Ramos v.
Ngaseo, A.C. No. 6210, December 9, 2004). RETAINING CHARGING LIEN
LIEN
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or As to Nature Passive lien. Active lien. It can
property collected or received for or from the It cannot be be enforced by
client. actively execution. It is a
enforced. It special lien.
Q: Del Mundo and Tuparan hired the services of Atty. is a general
Capistrano regarding their petitions for nullity of lien.
their marriages. Del Mundo paid Atty. Capistrano As to Basis Lawful Securing of a
₱78,500.00 and he assured her that he would file the possession of favorable money
petitions soon. After visiting the Clerk of Court, Del papers, judgment for
Mundo discovered that Atty. Capistrano had yet to documents, client.
file petitions for her and only filed for Tuparan. property
Aggrieved, she asked for the reimbursement of her belonging to
money. Atty. Capistrano negotiated that he could the client.
only return ₱63,000.00 and in a staggered basis.
After making a dated installment plan, Del Mundo As to Coverage Covers Covers all
agreed. Atty. Capistrano only paid ₱5,000 then papers, judgments for the
disappeared. Del Mundo now institutes a documents, payment of
disbarment complaint. Will Del Mundo’s petition and money and
prosper? properties in execution issued
A: YES, Del Mundo’s petition will prosper. A lawyer is the lawful in pursuance of
obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may possession of such judgment.
come to his possession. As trustee of such funds, he is the attorney
bound to keep them separate and apart from his own. by reason of
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such his
as for the filing and processing of a case if not utilized, professional
must be returned immediately upon demand. Failure to employment.
return gives rise to a presumption that he has
misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on As to Effect As soon as As soon as the
him. And the conversion of funds entrusted to him the attorney claim for
constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and gets attorney’s fees
betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession (Del

UST BAR OPERATIONS

16 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
possession of had been professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area
papers, entered into the covered by land title. The agreement between the
documents, records of the parties only shows that respondent will be paid the
or property. case. acceptance fee and the appearance fees, which the
respondent has duly received. Clearly, there is no
As to May be Generally, unsatisfied claim for attorney's fees that would entitle
Applicability exercised exercised only respondent to retain his client's property. Hence,
before when the respondent could not validly withhold the title of his
judgment or attorney had client absence a clear and justifiable claim (Miranda v.
execution or already secured a Carpio, A.C. No. 6281, September 26, 2011).
regardless favorable B. His defense must fail. The principle of quantum
thereof. judgment for his meruit applies if a lawyer is employed without a price
client. agreed upon for his services. In such a case, he would
be entitled to receive what he merits for his services,
As to When When client loses as much as he has earned. In the present case, the
Extinguishment possession action as lien may parties had already entered into an agreement as to
lawfully ends only be enforced the attorney's fees of the respondent, and thus, the
as when against judgment principle of quantum meruit does not fully find
lawyer awarded in favor application because the respondent is already
voluntarily of client, compensated by such agreement (Miranda v. Carpio,
parts with proceeds A.C. No. 6281, September 26, 2011).
funds, thereof/executed
documents, thereon. Q: Gloria Jinon entrusted a land title to Viola Jinon,
and papers who refused to return it. Gloria engaged the services
of client or of Atty. Jiz to recover it. Upon Atty. Jiz's instructions,
offers them Gloria remitted the amount of ₱45,000.00 to answer
as evidence. for the expenses of the transfer. However, when she
inquired about the status of her case, she was
Q: Charo Conti engaged the services of Atty. Cesar surprised to learn that a certain Atty. Caras was
Compostela for the registration of a property handling the same. She discovered that Atty. Jiz has
located in Cebu, and which property she had been collecting the rentals from the property for the
inherited together with her siblings. It was agreed period June 2003 up to October 2004, which
in writing that Charo would pay Atty. Compostela amounted to ₱12,000.00. When she demanded for
PhP 20,000 as acceptance fee and PhP 2,000 as the rentals, Atty. Jiz gave her only ₱7,000.00,
appearance fee. During the last hearing of the case, explaining that the balance of ₱5,000.00 would be
Atty. Compostela demanded an additional amount added to the expenses needed for the transfer of the
of PhP 20,000 for the preparation of a title of property to her name. Should Atty. Jiz be
memorandum, which he said would further administratively liable?
strengthen Charo's position, plus 20% of the total A: YES. Atty. Jiz violated Rule 16.03, Canon 16 when he
area of the property as additional fees for his failed to return, despite due demand, the funds allocated
services. Charo did not agree to Atty. Compostela's for the transfer of the title that he received from her.
demands since they were contrary to their Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such
agreement. Besides, the property was co-owned as for the processing of transfer of land title, but not used
with her siblings and she could not agree to Atty. for the purpose, should be immediately returned. A
Compostela's demands without the consent of her lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held
co-heirs. by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the
Four (4) years later, the petition for registration presumption that he has appropriated the same for his
was approved and the Land Registration Authority own use in violation of the trust reposed to him by his
notified Charo that the decree of registration and client (Jinon v. Atty. Jiz, A.C. No. 9615, March 5, 2013,
the original of the owner's duplicate copy of the PERLAS-BERNABE).
title had already been transmitted to the Register
of Deeds (RD). When Charo went to the RD, she was Q: In a retainership agreement, Atty. Lawsin
surprised to discover that the owner's duplicate received ₱15,000.00 for the litigation and
copy of the title had already been claimed by, and ₱39,000.00 for land registration expenses for
released to, Atty. Compostela. Despite demand, registration and delivery of land in Azucena’s name
Atty. Compostela refused to deliver the title to within a period of 6 months. After the lapse of more
Charo until she paid the additional attorneys' fees than three (3) years, Atty. Lawsin, without proper
that he was demanding. Charo then instituted a explanation, failed to fulfill his undertaking.
complaint for disbarment against him. In his Azucena confronted the Atty. Lawsin at his office and
defense, Atty. Compostela claimed that: sent him two (2) demand letters to withdraw the
(a) he had a right to retain the owner's subject amount, but all to no avail. Thus, Azucena
duplicate of the title as his retaining lien; filed an administrative complaint. Atty. Lawsin
and posited the following defense: First, that he could
(b) he was entitled to the payment of not perform his undertaking under the retainer
additional professional fees on the basis of because the ownership of the subject land was still
the principle of quantum meruit. under litigation; and Second, that he was maligned
Rule on Atty. Compostela's defenses. (2018 Bar) by Azucena when she went to his office and shouted
A: and called him names in the presence of his staff. Is
A. The defense must fail. There was no proof of any Atty. Lawsin administratively liable?
agreement between the complainant and the A: YES. Azucena’s purported act of "maligning" him does
respondent that the latter is entitled to an additional not justify the latter’s failure to properly account for and

UST BAR OPERATIONS

17 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
return his client’s money upon due demand. A lawyer
must deal with his client with professional maturity and
commit himself towards the objective fulfillment of his
responsibilities. If the relationship is strained, the
correct course of action is for the lawyer to properly
account for his affairs as well as to ensure the smooth
turn-over of the case to another lawyer. Except only for
the retaining lien exception under Rule 16.03, Canon 16
of the Code, the lawyer should not withhold the property
of his client. Unfortunately, absent the applicability of
such exception or any other justifiable reason therefor,
Atty. Lawsin still failed to perform his duties which
perforce warrants his administrative liability.
Furthermore, Atty. Lawsin also failed to give an
adequate explanation for such non-performance despite
the protracted length of time given for him to do so. As
such, these omissions equally showcase his non-
compliance with the standard of proficiency required of
a lawyer (Segovia-Ribaya v. Atty. Lawsin, A.C. No. 7965,
November 13, 2013, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from
his client unless the client's interest 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.
Prohibition from BORROWING money from client
GR: A lawyer is not allowed to borrow money from his
client.
XPN: The client’s interests are fully protected by the
nature of the case or by independent advice.
Prohibition of LENDING money to client
GR: A lawyer is not allowed to lend money to his client.
XPN: When in the interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for
the client (Rule 16.04, CPR).
Q: Atty. Dela Rosa served as the retained lawyer of
Spouses Concepcion. When the pawnshop business
of his clients failed to materialize, Atty. Dela Rosa,
borrowed ₱2,500,000.00, which he promised to
return, with interest, five (5) days thereafter.
Spouses Conception agreed to lend the sum to Atty.
Dela Rosa, believing that he would be soon returning
the money. Three (3) checks were issued in his
name. Atty. Dela Rosa failed to pay Spouses
Conception and did not heed their demand letter.
Can Atty. Dela Rosa be administratively liable?
A: YES. Atty. Dela Rosa is guilty of violating Rule 16.04
and Canon 7 of the CPR. Atty. Dela Rosa borrowed
money from Spouses Conception who were his clients
and whose interests, by the lack of any security on the
loan, were not fully protected. Owing to their trust and
confidence in Atty. Dela Rosa, they relied solely on the
former’s word that he will return the money plus
interest within five (5) days. However, Atty. Dela Rosa
abused the same and reneged on his obligation, giving
his previous clients the runaround. Furthermore, in
unduly borrowing money from the Spouses and by
blatantly refusing to pay the same, Atty. Dela Rosa
abused the trust and confidence reposed in him by his
clients, and, in so doing, failed to uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession (Concepcion v. Atty.
Dela Rosa, A.C. No. 10681, February 3, 2015, PERLAS-
BERNABE).
Return of money in an administrative case
18
1. If the money is received in a transaction separate and
distinct from, and not intrinsically linked to his
professional engagement – the Court cannot order the
return of the money. The clients must institute a
separate civil action to recover it.
Ex. Money from a loan
2. If the money is received in a transaction intrinsically
linked to his professional engagement – the Court can
order the return of the money
Ex. Filing fees, acceptance fees, attorney’s fees
Q: In an administrative case against Atty. Dela Rosa,
the IBP Resolution recommended the return of
₱2,500,000.00 received as a loan from Spouses
Concepcion. Is the IBP correct?
A: NO. It is settled that in disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of
the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member
of the Bar. In such cases, the Court's only concern is the
determination of lawyer’s administrative liability; it
should not involve his civil liability for money received
from his client in a transaction separate, distinct, and not
intrinsically linked to his professional engagement.
Here, Atty. Dela Rosa received the ₱2,500,000.00 as a
loan from Spouses Concepcion and not in consideration
of his professional services. Hence, the IBP's
recommended return of the sum lies beyond the ambit
of this administrative case, and thus cannot be sustained
(Concepcion v. Atty. Dela Rosa, A.C. No. 10681, February
3, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: Maglente gave Atty. Agcaoili the amount of
₱48,000.00 intended to cover the filing fees for the
action to be instituted. Despite the payment, Atty.
Agcaoili failed to file an action in court. When
confronted, Atty. Agcaoili explained that the money
given to him was not enough to fully pay for the filing
fees in court. Thus, Maglente asked for the return of
the money, but Atty. Agcaoili claimed to have spent
the same and even demanded more money. Can the
Court order Atty. Agcaoili to return the money?
A: YES. While the Court has previously held that
disciplinary proceedings should only revolve around the
determination of the respondent-lawyer’s
administrative and not his civil liability, it must be
clarified that this rule remains applicable only to
claimed liabilities which are purely civil in nature– for
instance, when the claim involves moneys received by
the lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and
distinct from and not intrinsically linked to his
professional engagement. Since the amount was
intended to answer for filing fees which is intimately
related to the lawyer-client relationship between
Maglente and Atty. Agcaoili, the Court finds the return
thereof to be in order (Maglente v. Atty. Agcaoili, A.C. No.
10672, March 18, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE).
CANON 17. Owes fidelity to client’s cause and be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him
Q: In order to settle the affairs of her deceased
husband, Pitcher engaged the services of Atty.
Gagate. Pitcher and Atty. Gagate met with Bantegui,
a major stockholder of Consulting Edge, to discuss
the settlement of her husband’s interest in the
company. Prior to a scheduled meeting, Pitcher was
prevailed upon by Atty. Gagate to put a paper seal on
the door of the premises. Bantegui expressed
disappointment over these actions then asked them
to leave and refused to give them a duplicate key.
Atty. Gagate, without the consent of Bantegui,
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
caused the change in the lock of the Consulting Edge
office door, which prevented the employees thereof
from entering and carrying on the operations of the
company. Bantegui filed a complaint for grave
coercion. The Prosecutor’s Office issued a
Resolution finding probable cause to charge Pitcher
and Atty. Gagate. Atty. Gagate advised Pitcher to go
into hiding until he had filed the motions agsints
Bantegui in court. However, Atty. Gagate abandoned
the grave coercion case and stopped communicating
with Pitcher. Is he guilty of violating the CPR?
A: YES. Atty. Gagate violated Canon 17 when he failed to
exercise the required diligence in handling Pitcher’s
cause: First, he failed to represent her competently and
diligently by acting and proffering professional advice
beyond the proper bounds of law; and, Second, he
abandoned his client’s cause while the grave coercion
case against them was pending. He remained unmindful
of his client’s trust in him – in particular, her trust that
Atty. Gagate would only provide her with the proper
legal advice in pursuing her interests. Atty. Gagate’s also
grossly and inexcusablely neglected his client, leaving
Pitcher totally unrepresented in a criminal case. Atty.
Gagate’s act of advising Pitcher to go into hiding in order
to evade arrest in the criminal case can hardly be
maintained as proper legal advice since the same
constitutes transgression of the ordinary processes of
law (Pitcher v. Gagate, A.C. No. 9532, October 8, 2013,
PERLAS-BERNABE).
CANON 18. Serve client with competence and
diligence
Degree of diligence required in the profession
The legal profession demands of a lawyer that degree of
vigilance and attention of a good father of a family
(Lapena, 2009) or ordinary pater familias (Pineda, 2009).
He is not required to exercise extraordinary diligence
(Edquibal v. Ferrer, Jr., A.C. No. 5687, February 3, 2005).
Q: Spouses Montecillo are defendants in an
ejectment case. After filing their Answer to the
complaint, Spouses Montecillo received a notice
from the court setting the preliminary conference.
When complainants went to Atty. Gatchalian's office
to confer with him about it, the latter told them that
he did not receive the notice and that he could not
attend the preliminary conference due to a conflict
in his schedule. He allegedly advised them not to
attend anymore as he would arrange with the court
for a new schedule when he is available. Thereafter,
they found out that Atty. Gatchalian not only failed
to attend the scheduled preliminary conference, but
also failed to take any steps to have it cancelled or
reset to another date. They also learned that he did
receive the notice setting the date of the preliminary
conference. Should Atty. Gatchalian be held
administratively liable?
A: YES. Jurisprudence provides that the lawyer's duties
of competence and diligence include not merely
reviewing cases or giving sound legal advice, but also
consist of properly representing a client before any
court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings and
conferences, preparing and filing the required
pleadings, prosecuting handled cases with reasonable
dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting
for the client or the court to prod him to do so. A lawyer's
negligence in fulfilling these duties subjects him to
disciplinary action. Here, Atty. Gatchalian failed to
exercise the diligence required of lawyers in handling
Sps. Montecillo’s case. Based on the records, he failed to
19
file the necessary motion to postpone the hearing due to
a conflict in his schedule, and as a result, Sps. Montecillo
lost their opportunity to present their evidence in the
ejectment case. As the counsel in the ejectment case,
Atty. Gatchalian was expected to exercise due diligence.
He should have been more circumspect in preparing and
filing the motion, considering the serious consequence
of failure to attend the scheduled preliminary
conference (Montecillo v. Atty. Gatchalian, A.C. No. 8371,
June 28, 2017, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: Samonte alleged that she received summons from
the NLRC relative to an illegal dismissal case filed by
four (4) persons claiming to be workers in her small
banana plantation. Consequently, Samonte engaged
the services of Atty. Jumamil. Despite constantly
reminding him of the deadline for the submission of
her position paper, Samonte discovered that Atty.
Jumamil still failed to file the same. The Labor
Arbiter rendered a Decision based on the evidence
on record, whereby Samonte was held liable to the
workers in the total amount of ₱633,143.68. Should
Atty. Jumamil be held administratively liable?
A: YES. The relationship between a lawyer and his client
is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this
regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be
ever mindful of their cause, and accordingly, exercise the
required degree of diligence in handling their affairs.
Accordingly, lawyers are required to maintain, at all
times, a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote
their full attention, skill, and competence to their cases,
regardless of their importance, and whether they accept
them for a fee or for free (Samonte v. Atty. Jumamil, A.C.
No. 11668, July 17, 2017, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Instances of Lawyer’s lack of Diligence: (1) Lawyer
failed to file his client’s position paper which caused the
client to be default in an ejectment case. The
complainant’s appeal was also denied since the lawyer
failed to file an appeal memorandum. (2) Lawyer failed
to file his client’s position paper and he did not inform
the complainant that his case was dismissed by the
court; (3) The lawyer’s services were availed in order to
file a petition for adoption of a minor child but he failed
to perform anything related to the case despite the lapse
of one year (Sps. Lopez v. Atty. Limos, A.C. No. 7618,
February 2, 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE); (4) Lawyer failed
to file a motion for reconsideration on behalf of his client
and further neglected to regularly update his clients on
the status of the case; (5) Lawyer failed to immediately
seek any remedy to further the interests of his client
after discovering that the court waived his client’s right
to cross-examine a prosecution witness. His motion for
reconsideration was denied for being filed way beyond
the reglementary period (Layos v. Atty. Villanueva, A.C.
No. 8085, December 1, 2014, PERLAS-BERNABE); and
(6)Lawyer failed to act on his client’s multiple cases,
including failure to appear in the hearing for
preliminary investigation on his client’s estafa case
(Martin v. Atty. Dela Cruz, A.C. No. 9832, September 4,
2017, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Collaborating Counsel is subsequently engaged to
assist a lawyer already handling a particular case for a
client (Pineda, 2009).
NOTE: The handling lawyer cannot just take another
counsel without the consent of the client. The new
lawyer on the other hand cannot just enter his
appearance as collaborating counsel without the
conformity of the first counsel.
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
(1998, 2002 Bar)
Q: Are the mistakes or negligence of a lawyer
binding upon the client? (1998, 2000, 2002 Bar)
GR: Client is bound by attorney’s conduct, negligence
and mistake in handling a case or in the management of
litigation and in procedural technique, and he cannot
complain that the result might have been different had
his lawyer proceeded differently.
XPNs: [LIPIG]
1. Lack of acquaintance with technical aspect of
procedure;
2. When adherence thereto results in
outright deprivation of client’s liberty or property
or where Interest of justice so requires;
3. Where error by counsel is Purely technical which
does not substantially affect client’s cause;
4. Ignorance, incompetence, or inexperience of lawyer
is so great and error so serious that client, who has
a good cause, is prejudiced and denied a day in
court; and
5. Gross negligence of lawyer.
NOTE: 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.
Q: Gloria Jinon entrusted a land title to Viola Jinon,
who refused to return it. Gloria engaged the services
of Atty. Jiz to recover it. When she inquired about the
status of her case, Gloria was surprised to learn that
a certain Atty. Caras was handling the same. Atty. Jiz
failed to perform any positive act in order to recover
land title from Viola for more than a year. Should
Atty. Jiz be administratively liable?
A: YES. Rule 18.03, Canon 18 was violated. When a
lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will
exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights.
Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention
expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer
unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and
makes him answerable not just to client but also to the
legal profession, the court and society (Jinon v. Atty. Jiz,
A.C. No. 9615, March 5, 2013, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to the client’s request for
information.
Q: Sison engaged Atty. Valdez’s legal services.
Although no written agreement was executed
between the parties specifying the scope of legal
services, Atty. Valdez received the total amount of
P215,000.00 from Sison. Subsequently, Sison
terminated Atty. Valdez’s legal services with a
demand to return the amount given, which was not
heeded despite several demands. Hence, Sison, filed
the instant disbarment complaint alleging that Atty.
Valdez failed to render his legal services and update
her regarding the status of the case; commingled her
money with that of Atty. Valdez’s wife;
misappropriated her money by failing to issue a
receipt for the last installment of the payment
received; and fabricated documents to justify
retention of her money. Should Atty. Valdez be held
20
administratively liable?
A: YES. Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, a
lawyer is duty-bound to serve the latter with
competence and to attend to such client's cause with
diligence, care, and devotion. He owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed upon him. In this relation, a lawyer
has the duty to apprise his client of the status and
developments of the case and all other relevant
information. The highly fiduciary nature of an attorney-
client relationship imposes on a lawyer the duty to
account for the money or property collected or received
for or from his client. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a
specific purpose, such as for the filing and processing of
a case, if not utilized, must be returned immediately
upon demand. His failure to return gives rise to a
presumption that he has appropriated it for his own use,
and the conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes
a gross violation of his professional obligation under
Canon 16 of the CPR (Sison v. Atty. Valdez, A.C. No. 11663,
July 31, 2017, PERLAS-BERNABE).
CANON 19. Represent client with zeal within the
bounds of law
Authority to appear in court is presumed
GR: A lawyer is presumed to be properly authorized to
represent any cause in which he appears.
XPN: On motion of either party and on reasonable
grounds, the presiding judge may require an attorney to
prove the authority under which he appears (Sec. 21,
Rule 138, RRC).
Effects of unauthorized appearance: (1) The party
represented is not bound by attorney’s appearance in
the case neither by the judgment rendered therein; (2)
Court does not acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the party represented; (3) The adverse party who has
been forced to litigate as a defendant by the
unauthorized action on the part of the attorney for the
plaintiff may, on that ground, move for the dismissal of
the complaint; and (4) If unauthorized appearance is
willful, attorney may be cited for contempt as an officer
of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions, and he may be disciplined for professional
misconduct.
Extent of lawyer’s authority in litigation
A lawyer has authority to bind the client in all matters of
ordinary judicial procedure. The cause of action, the
claim or demand sued upon and the subject matter of the
litigation are within the exclusive control of the client. A
client may waive, surrender, dismiss, or compromise
any of his rights involved in litigation in favor of the
other party even without or against the consent of his
attorney (Bejarasco v. People, G.R. No. 159781, February
2, 2011; Agpalo, 2009).
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, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case or proceeding. (1997 Bar)
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
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
rectify the same, and failing which he shall
terminate the relationship with such client in
accordance with the Rules of Court (2001 Bar)
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to
dictate the procedure in handling the case.
Who has control over the case
1. As to matters of procedure - it is the client who yields
to the lawyer and not the lawyer yielding to the
client (Lapena 2009).
2. As to subject matter - the client is in control.
Authority of counsel to compromise
GR: The attorney has no authority to compromise his
client’s case is so because the client, even if represented
by counsel, retains exclusive control over the subject
matter of the litigation. The client can, of course,
authorize his lawyer to compromise his case, and the
settlement made by the lawyer will bind his client.
XPNs:
1. When the lawyer is confronted with an emergency
where prompt and urgent action is necessary to
protect the interest of his client and there is no
opportunity for consultation with the latter.
2. Settlement of monetary obligation to client is full
payment in cash.
NOTE: The Rules of Court requires lawyers to secure
special authority from their clients when entering into a
compromise agreement that dispenses with litigation
(Luna v. Galarrita, A.C. No.10662, July 7, 2015).
CANON 20. Charge only fair and reasonable fees
Although the practice of law is not a business, an
attorney is entitled to be properly compensated for the
professional services rendered for the client, who is
bound by her express agreement to duly compensate the
attorney. The client may not deny her attorney such just
compensation based on Article 19 of the Civil Code,
which mandates that "every person must, in the exercise
of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith." (Malvar vs. Kraft Food Philippines, G.R.
No. 183952, September 9, 2013).
GR: Only lawyers are entitled to attorney’s fees. The
same cannot be shared with a non-lawyer. It is unethical.
XPNs: A lawyer may divide a fee for legal services with
another under the following instances: [CPR]
1. A lawyer undertakes to Complete the unfinished
legal business of a deceased lawyer;
2. 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;
3. A lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees
in Retirement plan, even if the plan is based, in whole
or in part, on a profit-sharing agreement (Rule 9.02,
CPR).
Factors in determining the attorney’s fees (1994
Bar): [STIP-SNACCC]
1. Skill demanded;
2. Time spent and the extent of the services rendered
or required;
3. Importance of the subject matter;
4. Probability of losing other employment as a result of
acceptance of the proffered case;
5. Professional Standing of the lawyer;
6. Novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
21
7. Amount involved in the controversy and the benefits
resulting to the client from the services;
8. Customary Charges for similar services and the
schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he
belongs;
9. Contingency or certainty of compensation; and
10. Character of the employment, whether occasional or
established (Rule 20.01).
NOTE: Imposition of interest in the payment of
attorney’s fees is not justified (Funa, 2009).
Retaining fee – a preliminary fee given to an attorney
or counsel to insure and secure his future services, and
induce him to act for the client. (Pineda, 2009).
Acceptance fee - the charge imposed by the lawyer for
merely accepting a case, because once the lawyer agrees
to represent a client, he is precluded from handling the
case of the opposing party based on the prohibition on
conflict of interest
NOTE: An acceptance fee is generally non-refundable,
but such rule presupposes that the lawyer has rendered
legal service to his client. In the absence of such service,
the lawyer has no basis for retaining complainant's
payment (Martin v. Atty. Dela Cruz, A.C. No. 9832,
September 4, 2017, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Contingent fee – an agreement in writing where the fee,
often a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the
action, is made to depend upon the success of the
litigation (Villarama vs. Atty. De Jesus, G.R. No. 217004,
April 17, 2017).
CONTINGENT CHAMPERTOUS
CONTRACT CONTRACT
Payable in cash – Payable in kind - a portion
dependent on the of the thing or property
success of the litigation recovered as
compensation
Lawyers do not Lawyers undertake to pay
undertake to pay all all expenses of litigation
expenses of litigation
Valid Void
Two concepts of attorney’s fees
1. Ordinary attorney's fee – The reasonable
compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the
legal services he has rendered to the latter (Ortiz v.
San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 151983-84, July 31,
2008).
NOTE: The basis for this compensation is the fact of
his employment by and his agreement with the
client.
2. Extraordinary attorney's fee – An indemnity for
damages ordered by the court to be paid by the
losing party in litigation (Ortiz v. San Miguel
Corporation, G.R. No. 151983-84, July 31, 2008).
NOTE: The basis for this is any of the cases provided
for by law where such award can be made, such as
those authorized in Article 2208 of the Civil Code,
and is payable to the client, NOT to the lawyer unless
they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the
lawyer as additional compensation or as part
thereof.
Instances when the measure of quantum meruit may
be resorted to (2007 Bar): (1) There is no express
contract for payment of attorney’s fees agreed upon
between the lawyer and the client; (2) Although there is
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
a formal contract for attorney’s fees, the stipulated fees
are found unconscionable or unreasonable by the court;
(3) The contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely
formal matters or defects of execution; (4) The counsel,
for justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its
conclusion; (5) Lawyer and client disregard the contract
for attorney’s fees; and (6) The client dismissed his
counsel before the termination of the case.
Instances when counsel cannot recover the full
amount despite written contract for attorneys’ fees
(2006 Bar): (1) When the services called for were not
performed as when the lawyer withdrew before the case
was finished, he will be allowed only reasonable fees;
(2) When there is a justified dismissal of the attorney,
the contract will be nullified and payment will be on the
basis of quantum meruit only. A contrary stipulation will
be invalid; (3) When the stipulated attorney’s fees are
unconscionable, when it is disproportionate as
compared to the value of services rendered and is
revolting to human conscience; (4) When the
stipulated attorney’s fees are in excess of what is
expressly provided by law; (5) When the lawyer is guilty
of fraud or bad faith toward his client in the matter of his
employment; (6) When the counsel’s services are
worthless because of his negligence; (7) When contract
is contrary to law, morals or public policy; and (8)
Serving adverse interest unless the lawyer proves that it
was with the consent of both parties.
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with
the consent of the client, be entitled to a division of
fees in proportion to the work performed and
responsibility assumed (2017 Bar)
Q: Atty. Andy and Atty. Valeriano were classmates in
law school. As such, they developed a close friendly
relationship. They agreed that they would refer
clients to each other, and whoever referred clients
would receive a commission or portion of the
attorney's fees. Atty. Andy referred a client to Atty.
Valeriano, who charged the client ₱100,000.00 as
initial attorney's fees. Thereafter, Atty. Valeriano
sent 15% of ₱100,000.00, or ₱15,000.00, to Atty.
Andy as the latter's referral fee. Explain if the
agreement on the referral fee is ethical. (2017 Bar)
A: The agreement on the referral fee is unethical.
There is no service rendered in the matter of a referral
fee, where a lawyer shall receive compensation merely
for recommending another lawyer to his client.
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.
(1997, 2003 Bar)
Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies
with clients concerning his compensation and
shall resort to judicial action only to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud. (1998 Bar)
NOTE: A client may enter into a compromise agreement
without the intervention of the lawyer, but the terms of
the agreement should not deprive the counsel of his
compensation for the professional services he had
rendered. If so, the compromise shall be subjected to
said fees. If the client and the adverse party who
22
assented to the compromise are found to have
intentionally deprived the lawyer of his fees, the terms
of the compromise, insofar as they prejudice the lawyer,
will be set aside, making both parties accountable to pay
the lawyer’s fees. But in all cases, it is the client who is
bound to pay his lawyer for his legal representation
(Atty. Gubat v. NPC, G.R. No. 167415, February 26, 2010).
The client and the adverse party would be solidarily
liable for the attorney’s fees as stipulated in the written
agreement under the theory that they unfairly and
unjustly interfered with the lawyer’s professional
relationship with the client. They became joint tort-
feasors who acted adversely against the interests of the
lawyer (Malvar v. Kraft Food Philippines, G.R. No. 183952,
September 9, 2013).
Instances when an independent civil action to
recover attorney’s fees is necessary: (1) Main action
is dismissed or nothing is awarded; (2) Court has
decided that it has no jurisdiction over the action or has
already lost it; (3) Person liable for attorney’s fees is not
a party to the main action; (4) Court reserved to the
lawyer the right to file a separate civil suit for recovery
of attorney’s fees; (5) Services for which the lawyer
seeks payment are not connected with the subject
litigation; (6) Judgment debtor has fully paid all of the
judgment proceeds to the judgment creditor and the
lawyer has not taken any legal step to have his fees paid
directly to him from the judgment proceeds; and (7)
Failure to exercise charging lien.
Effects of the nullity of contract on the right to
attorney’s fees
1. Due to Illegality of its object - the lawyer is
precluded from recovering; or
2. Due to Formal defect (or because the court has
found the amount to be unconscionable) - the
lawyer may recover for any services rendered based
on quantum meruit.
CANON 21. Preserve the confidence and secrets of
client even after the attorney-client relation is
terminated
GR: A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences and
secrets of his client.
XPNs:
1. When authorized by his client after acquainting him
of the consequences of the disclosure;
NOTE: The only instance where the waiver of the
client alone is insufficient is when the person to be
examined regarding any privileged communication
is the attorney’s secretary, stenographer or clerk, in
respect to which, the consent of the attorney is
likewise necessary.
2. When required by law; or
3. When necessary to collect his fees or to defend
himself, his employees or associates 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 (2008 Bar)
CANON 22. Withdraw services only for good cause
and upon notice
Right to withdraw
GR: A lawyer lacks the unqualified right to withdraw
once he has taken a case. By his acceptance, he has
impliedly stipulated that he will prosecute the case to its
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
conclusion. This is especially true when such
withdrawal will work injustice to a client or frustrate the
ends of justice (Agpalo, 2009).
XPNs: The right of a lawyer to retire from the case
before its final adjudication, which arises only from:
1. The client’s written consent; or
2. By permission of the court after due notice and
hearing.
Instances when a lawyer may withdraw his services
without the consent of his client: [IVIM-FEOC]
1. When the client pursues an Illegal or immoral course
of conduct in connection with the matter he is
handling;
2. When the client insists that the lawyer pursue
conduct in Violation of these canons and rules;
3. When his Inability to work with co-counsel will not
promote the best interest of the client;
4. When the Mental or physical condition of the lawyer
renders it difficult for him to carry out the
employment effectively;
5. When the client deliberately Fails to pay the fees for
the services or fails to comply with the retainer
agreement;
6. When the lawyer is Elected or appointed to a public
office; and
7. Other similar cases (Rule 22.01, CPR)
8. When there is Conflict of interest.
Hot Potato Rule
GR: A lawyer may not unreasonably withdraw from
representing a client.
XPN: Withdrawal may be allowed if there is a conflict of
interests arising from circumstances beyond the control
of the lawyer or the law firm (Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th
edition)
NOTE: In cases letters “a” to “e” (above), the lawyer
must file a written motion with an express consent of his
client and the court shall determine whether he ought to
be allowed to retire. He may also retire at any time from
an action or special proceeding without the consent of
his client, should the court, on notice to the client and
attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be
allowed to retire (Sec. 26, Rule 138, RRC)
Procedure to follow when withdrawal is without
client’s consent
1. File a petition for withdrawal in court.
2. Serve a copy of this petition upon his client and the
adverse party at least 3 days before the date set for
hearing.
NOTE: If no new counsel has entered his appearance,
the court may, in order to prevent a denial of a party’s
right to the assistance of counsel require that the
lawyer’s withdrawal be held in abeyance until another
lawyer shall have appeared for the party (Agpalo, 2009).
A lawyer should not presume that the court will grant
his petition for withdrawal. Until his withdrawal shall
have been proved, the lawyer remains counsel of record
who is expected by his client and by the court to do what
the interests of his client require (Pineda, 2009).
Q: Can a client discharge the services of his lawyer
without a cause? (1994, 1997, 1998 Bar)
A: YES. A client has the right to discharge his attorney at
any time with or without a cause or even against his
consent.
1. With just cause – lawyer is not necessarily deprived
of his right to be paid for his services. He may only be
deprived of such right if the cause for his dismissal
23
constitutes in itself a sufficient legal obstacle for
recovery.
2. Without just cause
a. No express written agreement as to fees -
reasonable value of his services up to the date of
his dismissal (quantum meruit).
b. There is written agreement and the fee stipulated
is absolute and reasonable – full payment of
compensation.
c. The fee stipulated is contingent.
d. If dismissed before the conclusion of the action -
reasonable value of his services (quantum
meruit)
e. If contingency occurs or client prevents its
occurrence – full amount.
NOTE: A lawyer should question his discharge
otherwise he will only be allowed to recover on quantum
meruit basis.
Heavy workload is NOT an excuse for withdrawal as
counsel
Standing alone, heavy workload is not sufficient reason
for the withdrawal of a counsel. When a lawyer accepts
to handle a case, whether for a fee or gratis et amore, he
undertakes to give his utmost attention, skill and
competence to it regardless of its significance. Failure to
fulfill his duties will subject him to grave administrative
liability as a member of the Bar (Ceniza v. Atty. Rubia, A.C.
No. 6166, October 2, 2009).
Duties of a discharged lawyer or one who withdraws
1. Immediately turn-over all papers and property to
which the client is entitled; and
2. To cooperate with his successor in the orderly
transfer of the case (Rule 22.02, CPR).
APPLICABILITY TO JUDGES, JUSTICES AND COURT
OFFICIALS
Applicability of the Canons to judges and justices
and other court officials (2014 Bar)
Some administrative cases against judges, justices
(except Supreme Court Justices who can only be the
subject of impeachment) and court officials who are
lawyers are based on grounds which are likewise
grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the
Bar for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of
Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of breaches
of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as
grounds for the discipline of lawyers. Thus, they are
required to comment on the complaints filed against
them and show cause why they should not be
suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary
sanctioned as a member of the bar. The administrative
case shall also be considered a disciplinary action
against the respondent Justice, judge or court official
concerned as a member of the Bar (RE: Automatic
Conversion of Some Administrative Cases Against Justices
of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of
Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are
Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both
as Such Officials and as Members of the Philippine Bar,
A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, September 17, 2002).
NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF DISCIPLINARY
ACTION AGAINST LAWYERS
The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed
by the State on those who show that they possess and
continue to possess the legal qualifications for the
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
profession. Lawyers may, this, be disciplined for any
conduct that is wanting of the above standards whether
in their professional or in their private capacity
(Tumbokon v. Atty. Pefianco, A.C. No. 6116, August 1,
2012, PERLAS-BERNABE).
NOTE: The power to disbar must be exercised with great
caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that
seriously affects the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the
bar. Thus, where a lesser penalty, such as temporary
suspension, could accomplish the end desired,
disbarment should never be decreed (Ventura v. Samson,
A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012).
Characteristics of disbarment proceedings
1. Sui Generis
2. The defense of “double jeopardy” cannot be availed
of in a disbarment proceeding;
3. It can be initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court
or IBP. It can be initiated without a complaint;
4. It is imprescriptible;
5. Conducted confidentially;
6. It can proceed regardless of the interest or the lack
thereof on the part of the complainant; and
7. It in itself constitutes due process of law.
8. Whatever has been decided in a disbarment case
cannot be a source of right that may be enforced in
another action;
9. In pari delicto rule not applicable;
10. No prejudicial question in disbarment proceedings;
11. Penalty in a disbarment case cannot be in the
alternative; and
12. 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.
Sui generis in nature (2002 Bar)
Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of
their own (sui generis). They are distinct from and may
proceed independently of civil and criminal cases (In re
Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, February 18, 1970; Funa,
2009). It is:
a. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they are
investigations by the Court into the conduct of one
of its officers.
b. Not a civil action because there is neither plaintiff
nor respondent, and involves no private interest.
The complainant is not a party and has no interest
in the outcome except as all citizens have in the
proper administration of justice. There is no redress
for private grievance.
c. Not a criminal prosecution because it is not meant
as a punishment depriving him of source of
livelihood but rather to ensure that those who
exercise the function should be competent,
honorable and reliable so that the public may
repose confidence in them.
Q: Atty. Cristal was C Five's Corporate Secretary and
Legal Counsel. Atty. Cristal recommended the
purchase of a resort in Laguna, with the assurances
that the title covering the property was "clean", but
no title was transferred in C Five's name because
title covering the property is a Free Patent and
under the five-year prohibition on disposition. C
Five demanded the return of ₱l,200,000.00 as
expenses for transfer, which was unheeded. Isalos,
Director and Treasurer of C Five, filed an
administrative case against her. Atty. Cristal
24
returned the amount, then C Five withdraw the
complaint. Will the case prosper?
A: YES. Return of the full amount to C Five and the Isalos’
withdrawal of the complaint against her are not ample
grounds to completely exonerate the administrative
liability of Atty. Cristal It is settled that a case of
suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of
interest or lack of interest of the complainant (Isalos v.
Atty. Cristal, A.C. No. 11822, November 22, 2017, PERLAS-
BERNABE).
No prescriptive period for the filing of a
administrative complaint against an erring lawyer
At most, the delay in the institution of the administrative
case would merely mitigate the erring lawyer’s liability
(Heck v. Judge Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, February 23,
2004).
No double or multiple disbrament
Q: Labor Arbiter Atty. Barrios was tasked to re-
compute the monetary awards due to the Abella who
sought to execute the CA Decision which had already
been final and executory. When Abella moved for
execution – twice at that – Atty. Barrios slept on the
same for more than a year. It was only when Abella
paid Atty. Barrios a personal visit, offering a portion
of the monetary award thereof, that the latter
speedily issued a writ of execution three (3) days
after. Abella filed a disbarment case against Atty.
Barrios, but Atty. Barrios was already disbarred in
an earlier administrative case. If found guilty,
should he be meted the penalty of disbarment?
A: NO. He should not be disbarred. Although Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when a lawyer
is found guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross
misconduct, he may be suspended or disbarred, the
Court takes judicial notice of the fact that he had already
been disbarred in a previous administrative case.
Therefore, the Court is precluded from duplicitously
decreeing the same (Abella v. Atty. Barrios, A.C. No. 7332,
June 18, 2013, PERLAS-BERNABE).
GROUNDS [DMG-COW-AD]
1. Deceit;
2. Malpractice;
3. Grossly immoral conduct;
4. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
5. Violation of Oath of office;
6. Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court;
7. Corrupt or willful Appearance as an attorney for a
party to a case without authority to do so (Sec. 27,
Rule 138, RRC);
8. Non-payment of IBP membership dues (Santos, Jr. v.
Atty. Llamas, A.C. No. 4749, January 20, 2000).
The statutory enumeration is not to be takenas a
limitation on the general power of Supreme Court to
suspend or disbar a lawyer (In Re: Puno, A.C. No. 389,
February 28, 1967). HENCE, the grounds enumerated
are NOT exclusive.
Lawyer’s misconduct committed prior and after
admission to the bar and its effects
1. PRIOR to admission to the bar- acts of misconduct
prior to admission include those that indicate that at
the time the lawyer took his oath, he did not possess
the required qualifications for membership in the
bar. Consequently, the cancellation of his license is
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
justified.
2. AFTER admission to the bar - those which cause
loss of moral character on his part or involve
violation of his duties to the court, his client, to the
legal profession and to the public.
NOTE: Disbarment is merited when the action is not the
lawyer’s first ethical infraction of the same nature (Que
v. Revilla, A.C. No. 7054, December 4, 2009).
Other statutory grounds for suspension and
disbarment of members of the bar
1. Acquisition of interest in the subject matter of the
litigation, either through purchase or assignment
(Art. 1491, NCC);
2. Breach of professional duty, inexcusable negligence,
or ignorance, or for the revelation of the
client’s secrets (Art. 208, RPC);
3. Representing conflicting interests (Art. 209, RPC).
Any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in his
public or private activities, which tends to show him
deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor, is sufficient to warrant his suspension or
disbarment (Tiong v. Atty. Florendo, A.C. No. 4428,
December 12, 2011, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Other grounds for discipline
1. Non-professional misconduct
GR: A lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred for
misconduct in his non-professional or private
capacity.
XPN: Where such is so gross as to show him to be
morally unfit for office or unworthy of privilege, the
court may be justified in suspending or removing
him from the Roll of Attorneys. (2005 Bar)
2. Promoting to violate or violating penal laws
3. Misconduct in discharge of official duties – 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 government official.
However, if the misconduct is in violation of the CPR
or of his oath as a lawyer or is of such a character as
to affect his qualifications as a lawyer, he may be
subject to disciplinary action such as disbarment
(Collantes v. Renomeron, A.C. No. 3056, August 16,
1991).
NOTE: This rule does not apply to impeachable
officials like Supreme Court justices, members of
constitutional commissions and Ombudsman
because they can only be removed by impeachment.
4. Commission of fraud or falsehood; and
5. Misconduct as notary public
NOTE: By having himself commissioned as notary
public, a lawyer assumes duties in a dual capacity,
the non-performance of which may be a ground for
discipline as a member of the bar.
PROCEEDINGS
Disbarment Proceedings
1. Initiated by the Supreme court motu proprio or by
the IBP, or upon verified complaint by any person
filed with the Supreme Court or an IBP Chapter
2. If complaint is prima facie meritorious, referred to
the IBP, the Solicitor General, any officer of the Court
or a judge of a lower court
3. IBP Board of Governors assigns complaint to
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
4. CBD will assign complaint to a Commissioner or
group Commissioners.
25
5. If complaint found meritorious, Commissioner(s)
will require respondent to file an answer.
6. Commissioner will conduct hearing in which
respondent is accorded due process.
7. After hearing, Commissioner(s) will submit Report
and Recommendation to IBP Board of Governors.
8. Board of Governors will render decision, either
exonerating the respondent and dismissing the case,
or imposing a sanction less than suspension, or
recommending suspension or disbarment to the
Supreme Court. Exoneration may be appealed by the
complainant to the Supreme Court. Sanction of less
than suspension or disbarment may be appealed by
the respondent to the Supreme Court. Either one may
file a motion for reconsideration with the IBP Board
before appealing.
9. Supreme Court renders decision, by division if
penalty is fine of P10,000 less and/or suspension for
one year or less, and by the court en banc, if penalty
is fine of more than P10,000.00 and/or suspension
for more than one year, or disbarment.
Desistance
The desistance or the withdrawal of the complainant of
the charges against a judge/lawyer does not deprive the
court of the authority to proceed to determine the
matter. Nor does it necessarily result in the dismissal of
the complaint except when, as a consequence of the
withdrawal or desistance no evidence is adduced to
prove the charges (Presado v. Judge Genova, A.M. No. RTJ-
91-657, June 21, 1993). The complainant in a disbarment
case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who
brought the matter to the attention of the Court
(Quiachon v. Atty. Ramos, A.C. No. 9317, June 4, 2014).
Purposes of disbarment
Disbarment is not meant as a punishment to deprive an
attorney of a means of livelihood but rather intended to:
1. To protect the public
2. To protect and preserve the legal profession
3. To compel the lawyer to comply with his duties and
obligations under the CPR.
Quantum of proof
The quantum of proof in administrative cases against
lawyers is substantial evidence (Reyes v. Nieva, A.C. No.
8560, September 6, 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally
reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise
(Gubaton v. Atty. Amador, A.C. No. 8962, July 9, 2018,
PERLAS-BERNABE).
REASON: The evidentiary threshold of substantial
evidence - as opposed to preponderance of evidence - is
more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and
essential considerations attending this type of cases.
Public interest is its 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. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers,
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 by purging the profession of members who by
their misconduct have proved themselves no longer
worthy to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In
such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
a complainant or a prosecutor (Reyes v. Nieva, A.C. No.
8560, September 6, 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE).
The burden of proof rests on the complainant, and she
must establish the case against the respondent by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof, disclosing a case that
is free from doubt as to compel the exercise by the Court
of its disciplinary power. Thus, the adage that he who
asserts not he who denies, must prove (Atty. Dela
Fuente-Torres et. al v. Dalangin, A.C. No. 10758, December
5, 2017)
Q: Adante filed before the Ombudsman a letter,
alleging that it was “intimated to her” that Atty.
Cajayon, whom she met only once, was in cahoots
with Justice Lantion in engaging in the shameful
business of “selling” decisions involving cases from
the CA-CDO to the highest bidder. Subsequently,
Ofendoreyes filed before the same agency a letter,
requesting the latter to investigate and stop the
purported partnership of Atty. Cajayon and Justice
Lantion from the business of selling decisions in
exchange for money. The OCA found that the letter-
complaints were insufficient in form and substance
in that they: (1) were not verified; and (2) lacked
affidavits of persons who may have personal
knowledge of the facts to prove or substantiate the
letter-complaints' allegations against Atty. Cajayon
and Justice Lantion, as well as supporting
documents. Will the case prosper?
A: NO. Under the Rules of Court, administrative
complaints both against lawyers and judges of regular
and special courts as well as Justices of the Court of
Appeals and the Sandiganbayan must be verified and
supported by affidavits of persons who have personal
knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents
which may substantiate said allegations. Jurisprudence
dictates that in administrative proceedings,
complainants bear the burden of proving the allegations
in their complaints by substantial evidence. If they fail to
show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which their
claims are based, the respondents are not obliged to
prove their exception or defense. The evidence against
the respondent should be competent and should be
derived from direct knowledge. Adante and
Ofendoreyes not only failed to comply with the formal
requirements provided in the Rules of Court, but also did
not present evidence to lend any ostensible merit to
their letter-complaints. Thus, the case should be
dismissed (Re: Letter of Ofendoreyes Alleging Illicit
Activities of a Certain Atty. Cajayon Involving Cases In CA,
A.M. No. 16-12-03-CA, June 6, 2017, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: Jildo Gubaton filed an administrative case against
Atty. Amador for gross immorality for maintaining
an illicit relationship with his wife, Bernadette.
Testimonies of Bernandette's house helper and
Bernadette's clinic secretary were argued to be
hearsay. Gubaton submitted several other pieces of
evidence. First, Gubaton’s own account that he
actually saw Atty. Amador and Bernadette together
on various intimate occasions. Second,
corroborative statements in an affidavit executed by
Navarez, who works in BIR as a messenger and goes
around the city in relation to his work. Third,
description by Gubaton’s sister, Nila, about how
Atty. Amador would often visit Bernadette and
spend the night in their residence, while she was
still living with Bernadette and their children
thereat. Fourth, love letters/notes supposedly
written by Bernadette to Atty. Amador. Is there
26
substantial evidence to prove that Atty. Amador is
guilty of gross immorality.
A: YES. To satisfy the substantial evidence requirement
for administrative cases, hearsay evidence should
necessarily be supplemented and corroborated by other
evidence that are not hearsay. The following evidence
sufficiently prove the existence of an illicit relationship:
(1) Gubaton’s own account; (2) corroborative
statements in an affidavit executed by Navarez, a neutral
and disinterested witness; (3) description by Gubaton’s
sister, Nila; and (4) love letters/notes supposedly
written by Bernadette to Atty. Amador (Gubaton v. Atty.
Amador, A.C. No. 8962, July 9, 2018, PERLAS-BERNABE).
DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IBP
By virtue of B.M. No. 1645, the IBP has no power to
dismiss complaint against lawyers. It may only
recommend the dismissal of such complaints as the
power to dismiss complaints against lawyers is solely
reserved to the Supreme Court.
The IBP shall forward to the Supreme Court for
appropriate disposition all complaints for disbarment,
suspension and discipline filed against incumbent
Justices of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of
Tax Appeals and judges of lower courts, or against
lawyers in the government service whether or not they
are charged singly or jointly with other respondents,
and whether or not such complaint deals with acts
unrelated to the discharge of their official functions.
1. If the complaint is filed before the IBP, it shall be
transmitted to the IBP Board of Governors for
assignment to an investigator.
2. The Board of Governors shall appoint from among
the IBP members an investigator or when special
circumstances so warrant, a panel of 3 investigators
to investigate the complaint;
3. If the complaint is meritorious, the respondent shall
be served with a copy requiring him to answer
within 15 days from service.
4. The respondent shall file a verified answer
containing the original and five (5) legible copies;
after receipt of the answer or lapse of the period to
do so, the Supreme Court, may, motu proprio or upon
recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors
suspend an attorney from practice, for any of the
causes under Rule 138, Sec. 27, during the pendency
of the investigation
5. After joinder of the issues or failure to answer, the
respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend
himself. But if the respondent fails to appear to
defend himself in spite of notice, the investigator
may proceed ex parte. The investigation shall be
terminated within 3 months from commencement
unless extended for good cause by the Board of
Governors upon prior application.
6. The investigator shall make a report to the Board of
Governors within 30 days from termination of the
investigation which report shall contain his findings
and recommendations together with the evidence.
7. The Board of Governors shall have the power to
review the decision of the investigator. Its decision
shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding
30 days from the next meeting of the Board following
the submission of the report of the investigator.
8. If the decision is a finding of guilt of the charges, the
IBP Board of Governors shall issue a resolution
setting forth its findings and recommendations
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
which shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for
final action together with the record.
NOTE: Lawyers must update their records with the IBP
by informing the IBP National Office or their respective
chapters of any change in office or residential address
and other contact details. In case such change is not duly
updated, service of notice on the office or residential
address appearing in the records of the IBP National
Office shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for
purposes of administrative proceedings against him
(Keld Stemmerik v. Atty. Leonuel Mas, A.C. No. 8010, June
16, 2009).
DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT
In proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court or in
other proceeding when the interest of justice so
requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case for
investigation to the Office of the Bar Confidant, or to any
officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in
which case the investigation shall proceed in the same
manner provided in sections 6-11 hereof, save that the
review off the report of investigation shall be conducted
directly by the Supreme Court. The complaint may also
be referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and
recommendation (Sec. 13, Rule 139-b, RRC, as amended
by B.M. No. 1645).
Effect of lawyer’s death in an administrative
proceeding against him
1. Renders the action moot and academic, but
2. The Court may still resolve the case on its merit in
order to clear publicly the name of the lawyer
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in
cases of dismissal of judges or disbarment of
lawyers
This principle or doctrine applies to both judges and
lawyers. Judges had been dismissed from the service
without need of a formal investigation because based on
the records, the gross misconduct or inefficiency of
judges clearly appears (Uy v. Mercado, A.M. No. R-368-
MTJ, September 30, 1987). The same principle applies to
lawyers. Thus, where on the basis of the lawyer’s
comment or answer to show a show-cause order of
Supreme Court, it appears that the lawyer has so
conducted himself in a manner which exhibits his
blatant disrespect to the court, or his want of good moral
character or his violation of the attorney’s oath, the
lawyer may be suspended or disbarred without need of
trial-type proceeding. What counts is that the lawyer has
been given the opportunity to air his side (Prudential
Bank v. Castro, A.M. No. 2756, June 5, 1986).
Executive Pardon Granted by the President
If during the pendency of disbarment proceeding the
respondent was granted executive pardon, the dismissal
of the case on that sole basis will depend on whether the
executive pardon is absolute or conditional.
1. Absolute or unconditional pardon - the disbarment
case will be dismissed.
2. Conditional pardon - the disbarment case will NOT
be dismissed on the basis thereof.
To be reinstated, there is still a need for the filing of an
appropriate petition with the Supreme Court.
Q: Judge Contreras was administratively charged
with Gross Misconduct, Insubordination and acts
inimical to judicial service. However, Judge Amor
filed a COC for the 2002 Barangay Elections, which
27
deemed him automatically resigned from the
judiciary. Can he still be administratively liable?
A: YES. Judge Amor’s automatic resignation due to his
filing of a COC for the 2002 Barangay Elections did not
divest the Court of its jurisdiction in determining his
administrative liability. Resignation should not be used
either as an escape or an easy way out to evade an
administrative liability or administrative sanction (OCA
v. Judge Amor, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140, October 7, 2014,
PERLAS-BERNABE).
Judgment of suspension of a Filipino lawyer in a
foreign court
The judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer in
a foreign jurisdiction does not automatically result in his
suspension or disbarment in the Philippines as the acts
giving rise to his suspension are not grounds for
disbarment and suspension in this jurisdiction.
Judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer may
transmute into a similar judgment of suspension in the
Philippines only if the basis of the foreign court's action
includes any of the grounds for disbarment or
suspension in this jurisdiction (Velez v. De Vera, A.C. No.
6697, July 25, 2006).
NOTE: The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign
court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie
evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension
(Supreme Court Resolution, February 13, 1992 amending
Sec. 27, Rule 138, RRC).
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED
Lifting of suspension is not automatic upon the end
of the period stated in the Court’s decision
The lifting of a lawyer’s suspension is not
automatic upon the end of the period stated in the
Court’s decision, and an order from the Court lifting the
suspension at the end of the period is necessary in order
to enable [him] to resume the practice of his profession
(J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. et al.
v. Atty. de Vera, et al. and Atty. de Vera v. Atty. Encanto, et
al.). Thus, according to the OBC, a suspended lawyer
must first present proof(s) of his compliance by
submitting certifications from the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and from the Executive Judge that he has
indeed desisted from the practice of law during the
period of suspension. Thereafter, the Court, after
evaluation, and upon a favorable recommendation from
the OBC, will issue a resolution lifting the order of
suspension and thus allow him to resume the practice of
law (Maniago v. Atty. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March 30,
2010).
Q: Atty. Paras was suspended from the practice of
law. The suspension period became effective on May
23, 2001 and lasted for one (1) year, or until May 22,
2002. Therafter, Atty. Paras filed a motion for the
lifting of his suspension. However, soon after this
filing and without waiting for a Court order
approving the same, Atty. Paras admitted to
accepting new clients and cases, and even working
on an amicable settlement for his client with the
DAR. Is he administratively liable?
A: YES. The practice of law embraces any activity, in or
out of court, which requires the application of law, as
well as legal principles, practice or procedure, and calls
for legal knowledge, training, and experience. During the
suspension period and before the suspension is lifted, a
lawyer must desist from practicing law. It must be
stressed, however, that a lawyer's suspension is not
automatically lifted upon the lapse of the suspension
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
period. The lawyer must submit the required documents
and wait for an order from the Court lifting the
suspension before he or she resumes the practice of law.
Atty. Paras engaged in the practice of law without
waiting for the Court order lifting the suspension order
against him, and thus, he must be held administratively
liable therefor (Paras v. Paras, A.C. No. 5333, March 13,
2017, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: On December 2, 2015, Atty. Basilio received the
Decision dated October 15, 2015 that suspends him
from the practice of law for one (1) year, revokes his
incumbent commission as a notary public, and
prohibits him from being commissioned as a notary
public for two (2) years, which was effective
immediately. Atty. Basilio admitted that he served
his suspension from the practice of law only on July
9, 2016 (date of receipt of an order denying his
motion for reconsideration), proffering that he
believed that what was immediately executory was
only the revocation of his notarial commission and
the two (2)-year prohibition against being
commissioned as a notary public. Is his contention
correct?
A: NO. The clause "effective immediately" was placed at
the end of the enumerated series of penalties to indicate
that the same pertained to and therefore, qualified all
three (3) penalties, which clearly include his suspension
from the practice of law. The immediate effectivity of the
order of suspension - not just of the revocation and
prohibition against his notarial practice - logically
proceeds from the fact that all three (3) penalties were
imposed on Atty. Basilio Thus, with the Decision's
explicit wording that the same was "effective
immediately", there is no denying that Basilio's
compliance therewith should have commenced
immediately from his receipt of the Decision on
December 2, 2015 (Atty. Bartolome v. Atty. Basilio, A.C.
No. 10783, January 31, 2018, PERLAS-BERNABE).
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN DISBARRED
Reinstatement means the restoration to a disbarred
lawyer, the privilege to practice law (Pineda, 2009).
Prior to actual reinstatement, the lawyer will be
required to take anew the lawyer’s oath and sign once
again the roll of attorneys after paying the requisite fees
(Funa, 2009).
Judicial clemency is an act of mercy removing any
disqualification from the erring judge. It can be granted
only if there is a showing that it is merited; thus, proof of
reformation and a showing of potential and promise are
indispensable (Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Judge
Villalon-Pornillos, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183, February 14,
2017).
Requirements for judicial clemency for disbarred
lawyers and judges: (TRAPO)
1. Sufficient Time must have elapsed from the
imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reform.
2. There must be proof of Remorse and 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 (such as
intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or
contribution to the legal scholarship and the
development of the legal system), as well as a
28
potential for public service.
5. There must be Other relevant factors and
circumstances that may justify clemency (Re: Letter
of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, MTC-QC, Br. 37, Appealing
for Judicial Clemency, A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC, September
19, 2007)
Q: Atty. Edmundo Macarubbo was disbarred from
the practice of law for having contracted a bigamous
marriage with Florence Teves and a third marriage
with one Josephine Constantino while his first
marriage to Helen Esparza was still subsisting,
which constituted gross immoral conduct. He has
asked forgiveness from his children by Teves and
maintained a cordial relationship with them. He also
returned to his hometown in Enrile, Cagayan and
devoted his time tending an orchard and taking care
of his ailing mother until her death. Eight (8) years
after such disbarment he now seeks judicial
clemency. The IBP, his children, multiple affidavits
and by the complainants in the original suit
supported him. Is he entitled to such?
A: YES. He has shown remorse and has changed his ways
from such disbarment. Eight (8) years has passed. His
plea is supported by the IBP, his children, multiple
affidavits and even by the complainants in the original
suit against him. He is entitled to judicial clemency
(Macarubbo v. Macarubbo, A.C. No. 6148, January 22,
2013, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: Judge Arceo was dismissed from service in 2004
for lewd and lustful acts against Talens-Dabon, a
court stenographer. He was also convicted of sexual
harassment and Art. 336 of the RPC, but he was
granted probation and finally discharged after
having complied with all the conditions thereof. 16
years after his dismissal he now petitions the Court
for Judicial Clemency. He is already 71 years old. He
submits to the Court more the 10 affidavits of his
character and positive recommendations by the IBP.
Is Judge Arceo entitled to judicial clemency?
A: YES, he is entitled to judicial clemency. Judge Arceo
has sufficiently shown his remorse and reformation
after his dismissal from the service meriting the Court’s
liberality. While it may be conceded that Judge Arceo at
71 years old had already reached retirement age and can
no longer be eligible for regular employment in the
public service, yet, considering his achievements and
mental aptitude, it cannot be doubted that he could still
be of service to the government in some other capacity.
While Judge Arceo was convicted by the Sandiganbayan
for violation of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law and
Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, he was granted
probation and finally discharged after having complied
with all the conditions thereof. Concomitantly, all his
civil rights which he had lost as a result of his conviction,
including the right to be employed in the public service,
were restored (Talens-Dabon v. Judge Arceo, A.M. No.
RTJ-96-1336, November 20, 2012, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: Judge Masamayor has been in the service of the
judiciary for the past 23 years. In 1999 and 2000,
Judge Masamayor was held administratively liable
for gross inefficiency in belatedly filing her motions
for extension of time to resolve the cases, which she
resolved within the extended period. She was made
to pay fines. OCA’s Memorandum acknowledged her
prompt compliance with the judicial audit
requirements of pending cases. After the lapse of 10
years, Judge Masamayor did not have any other
administrative complaints. She filed applied for
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
lateral transfer to the RTCs of Tagbilaran City, which
was near her home. She was notified by the JBC that
she was not included in the list of nominees for the
position of RTC judge, because her past record
disqualified her from such nomination. Judge
Masamayor prays for Judicial clemency. She views
her past actions with remorse. Such clemency was
supported and endorsed by his IBP chapter. Should
Judge Masamayor’s prayer for judicial clemency be
granted?
A: YES, Judge Masamayor’s prayer for judicial clemency
should be granted. Judge Masamayor has exhibited
remorse for her past misdeeds, which occurred more
than 10 years ago. While she was found to have belatedly
filed her motions for additional time to resolve the
aforecited cases, she had disposed of the same within
the extended period sought. Nevertheless, Judge
Masamayor has subsequently shown diligence in the
performance of her duties and has not committed any
similar act or omission. In the Memorandum of the OCA,
her prompt compliance with the judicial audit
requirements of pending cases was acknowledged and
she was even commended for her good performance in
the effective management of her court and in the
handling of court records. Judge Masamayor’s dedicated
service of 23 years to the judiciary merits compassion
from the Court. It bears to note that petitioner does not
seek for promotion to a higher position but only a lateral
transfer to a place of work near her residence (Re:
Petition for Judicial Clemency of Judge Masamayor, A.M
No. 12-2-6-SC, March 12, 2012, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Resumption of Practice of Law (2013 Bar)
Before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship
pursuant to R.A. 9225 can resume his law practice, he
must first secure from the Supreme Court the authority
to do so, conditioned on:
1. The updating and payment in full of the annual
membership dues in the IBP;
2. The payment of professional tax;
3. The completion of at least 36 credit hours of
mandatory continuing legal education, this is
especially significant to refresh the applicant’s
knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of
legal developments; and
4. The retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only
remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a
lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew
his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines (Petition for Leave to Resume Practice
of Law, Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007).
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
(MCLE)
MCLE ensures that members of the IBP are kept abreast
with law and jurisprudence throughout their career,
maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the
standards of the practice of law (Sec. 1, Rule 1, MCLE).
Members of the IBP, unless exempted under Rule 7, shall
complete every 3 years at least 36 hours of continuing
legal education activities.
MCLE Compliance shall be indicated in all pleadings
Failure to disclose the required information would
cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the
pleadings from the records (B.M. No. 1922, June 3, 2008).
NOTE: Failure to indicate MCLE Compliance in all
pleadings is NOT a ground for disbarment (Atty. Noble
III v. Atty. Ailes, A.C. No. 10628, July 1, 2015, PERLAS-
BERNABE).
29
Classes of credits
1. Participatory credit – Attending approved education
activities like seminars, conventions, symposia, and
the like; speaking or lecturing, or assigned as
panelist, reactor, or commentator, etc. in approved
education activities; teaching in law school or
lecturing in bar review classes.
2. Non-participatory – Preparing, as author or co-
author, written materials (article, book or book
review) which contribute to the legal education of
the author member, which were not prepared in the
ordinary course of his practice or employment;
editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
Acts constituting non-compliance of the MCLE are
the following: (1) Failure to complete education
requirement within the compliance period; (2) Failure
to provide attestation of compliance or exemption; (3)
Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance
(including evidence of exempt status) within the
prescribed period; (4) Failure to satisfy the education
requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance
within 60 days from receipt of non-compliance notice;
(5) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the
prescribed period; or (6) Any other act or omission
analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to
circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE
requirements (Sec. 1, Rule 12, MCLE).
Consequences of non-compliance
1. A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-
compliance at the end of the compliance period shall
pay a non-compliance fee (Sec. 1, Rule 13, MCLE).
2. A member who fails to comply with the requirements
after the 60-day period shall be listed as delinquent
member by the IBP Board of Governors upon
recommendation of the Committee on MCLE (Sec. 2,
Rule 13, MCLE).
NOTE: The listing as a delinquent member is an
administrative in nature but it shall be made with notice
and hearing by the Committee on MCLE.
Listing as a delinquent member is akin to
suspension
Listing as a delinquent member of the IBP is akin to
suspension because the lawyer shall not be permitted to
practice law until such time as he submits proof of full
compliance to the IBP Board of Governors, and the IBP
Board of Governors has notified the MCLE Committee of
his reinstatement (Arnado v. Atty. Adaza, A.C. No. 9834,
August 26, 2015).
Persons exempted from the MCLE
1. The President, Vice-President and the Secretaries
and Undersecretaries of Executive 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 Judicial and Bar
Council, incumbent members of the MCLE
Committee, incumbent court lawyers who have
availed of the Philippine Judicial Academy programs
of continuing judicial education (Amendment to Bar
Matter 850, Resolution of the Court En Banc, July 13,
2004);
4. The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and
Assistant Secretaries of the Dept. of Justice;
5. The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor
General;
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
6. The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and
Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
7. The Chairman 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 10
years in accredited law schools;
11. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the
Corps of Professional and Professorial Lecturers of
the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
12. Governors and Mayors because they are prohibited
from practicing their profession (Sec. 1, Rule 7,
MCLE).
Other parties exempted:
1. Those who are not in law practice, private or public;
2. Those who have retired from law practice with the
approval of the IBP Board of Governors (Sec. 2, Rule
7, MCLE).
Request for exemption under special circumstance
If there is a good cause for exemption from or
modification of requirement, member may file a verified
request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as
physical disability, illness, post-graduate study abroad,
proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with or
modification of any of the requirements, including an
extension of time for compliance, in accordance with
procedure to be established by the Committee on MCLE
(Sec. 3, Rule 7, MCLE).
NOTARIAL PRACTICE
Effect of notarized document
A document acknowledged before a notary public is a
public document (Sec. 19, Rule 132, RRC) and may be
presented in evidence without further proof, the
certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie
evidence of the execution of the instrument or document
involved (Sec. 30, Rule 132, RRC).
Qualifications of a notary public: [C21-RMC]
1. A citizen of the Philippines;
2. Over 21 years of age;
3. A resident in the Philippines for at least 1 year and
maintains a regular place of work or business in the
city or province where the commission is to be
issued;
4. A member of the Philippine Bar in good standing
with clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant
of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines; and
5. Has NOT been convicted in the first instance of any
crime involving moral turpitude (2nd par., Sec. 1, Rule
III, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, A.M. No. 02-8-13-
SC).
GR: Only those admitted to the practice of law are
qualified to be notaries public.
XPNs: When there are no persons with the necessary
qualifications or where there are qualified persons, but
they refuse appointment. In which case, the following
persons may be appointed as notaries:
1. Those who passed the studies of law in a reputable
university; or
2. A clerk or deputy clerk of court for a period of not
30
less than two years.
Term of office: Two (2) years, commencing from the
first day of January of the year in which the commission
was issued.
Jurisdiction of Notary Public: Territorial jurisdiction
of the commissioning court.
Place of notarization: Regular place of work, except:
1. public office, convention halls, and similar places
where oaths of office may be administered,
2. public function areas in hotels and similar places for
the signing of documents or instruments requiring
notarization,
3. hospitals and other medical institutions where a
party to an instrument is confined for treatment.,
4. any place where a party to an instrument is under
detention.
The “regular place of work or business” refers to a
stationary office in the city or province wherein the
notary public renders legal and notarial services.
Q: Almazan Sr. filed a complaint against Atty. Suerte-
Felipe for notarizing the acknowledgment of the
document entitled "Extra judicial Settlement of the
Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva" in
1999 stating that he is a "notary public for and in the
City of Marikina." Atty. Suerte-Felipe denied and
claimed that he was a notary public for the City of
Pasig and in the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros,
San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years 1998-
1999. Should Atty. Suerte-Felipe be administratively
liable?
A: YES. While appearing to be a harmless incident, Atty.
Suerte-Felipe’s act of notarizing documents in a place
outside of or beyond the authority granted by his
notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and
falsification (Almazan, Sr. v. Atty. Suerte-Felipe, A.C. No.
7184, September 17, 2014, PERLAS-BERNABE).
NOTE: “Notary Public” refers to any person
commissioned to perform official acts under these rules.
A notary public’s secretary is obviously not
commissioned to perform the official acts of a notary
public (Atty. Angeles, Jr. v. Atty. Bagay, A.C. No. 8103,
December 3, 2014).
Clerk of Court as Notary Public
Clerk of court may act as notary public, provided he is
commissioned and has been permitted by his superior.
Such consent is necessary because the act of notarizing
a document is a practice of law.
NOTE: Clerks of Court of RTCs are authorized to
notarize not only documents relating to the exercise of
official functions but also private documents, subject to
conditions that: (a) all notarial fees charged shall be for
the account of the Judiciary; and (b) they certify in the
notarized documents that there are no notaries public
within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC.
Authority of judges to notarize
MTC Judges – MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries
public ex-officio in the notarization of documents
connected only with the exercise of their official
functions and duties. They may not, as notaries public
ex-officio, undertake the preparation and
acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and
other acts of conveyances which bear no direct relation
to the performance of their functions as judges.
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
RTC Judges – No judge or other official or employee of
the superior courts shall engage in private practice as a
member of the bar or give professional advice to clients.
Notarization of documents is considered a practice of
law.
Commission
A notarial commission may be issued by an Executive
Judge to any qualified person who submits a petition in
accordance with the Rules on Notarial Practice.
Commissioned notary public is enjoined from
performing a notarial act unless the affiant is:
1. in his presence at the time of the notarization; and
2. personally known to him or otherwise identified by
him through competent evidence of identity as
defined by the Rules.
Q: Enumerate the instances when a Notary Public
may authenticate documents without requiring the
physical presence of the signatories. (2010 Bar)
A:
1. If the signatory is old or sick or otherwise unable to
appear, his presence may be dispensed with if one
credible witness not privy to the instrument and who
is known to the notary public, certifies under oath or
affirmation the identity of the signatory.
2. If two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to
the instrument, not known to the notary public but
can present their own competent evidence of
identity of the signatory.
3. In cases of copy certification and issuance of
certified true copies.
Expired Commission
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. Failure to
file said application will result in the deletion of the
name of the notary public in the register of notaries
public and may only be reinstated therein after he is
issued a new commission.
Q: Atty. Alvarez notarized a Joint Affidavit in 1993,
and an Application for Business Permit and the SPA
of Amante in 2010, all in San Pedro, Laguna.
However, as per the October 5, 2011 Certification
issued by COC Beran-Baraoidan of the RTC-San
Pedro, Atty. Alvarez was commissioned as a notary
public for and within San Pedro, Laguna only from
1998 to 2005, and that the said commission has not
been renewed in 2010 and therefore, already
expired. Additionally, the jurat of the 2010
Application for Business Permit which Atty. Alvarez
notarized did not bear the details of the competent
evidence of identity of its principal-signatory. While
this application appears to be a ready-made form
issued by the Municipality of San Pedro, Laguna. As
per the September 21, 2011 Certification issued by
COC Beran-Baraoidan, a copy of the SPA executed by
Amante was not submitted before the Office of the
COC of the RTC-San Pedro. Did Atty. Alvarez violated
the 2004 Notarial Rules?
A: YES. Atty. Alvarez committed the following violations
of the Notarial Rules: First, he performed notarial acts
without the proper notarial commission therefor.
Second, he notarized a document that is bereft of any
details regarding the identity of the signatory. Third, he
failed to forward to the COC of the commissioning court
a certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate
original copy of any instrument acknowledged before
31
him (Miranda v. Atty. Alvarez, A.C. No. 12196, September
03, 2018, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Revocation of Commission
Executive judge may revoke commission:
1. For any ground for which an application for a
commission may be denied;
2. Where the notary public –
a. fails to keep a notarial register;
b. fails to make a proper entry in his notarial
register;
c. fails to send a copy of his entries to the Executive
within10 days of the following month;
d. fails to affix to acknowledgments date of
expiration of his commission;
Notarial register - a permanently bound book with
numbered pages containing a chronological record of
notarial acts performed by a notary public (Sec 1, [a] par.
1, Rule VI, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
NOTE: Notary public is personally accountable for all
entries in his notarial register. They cannot be relieved
of responsibility for the violation of the aforesaid
sections by passing the buck to their secretaries (Lingan
v. Atty. Calibaquib, A.C. No. 5377, June 15, 2006). Failure
of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his
notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner
required by law is a ground for revocation of his
commission (Father Ranhilio C. Aquino Et. Al., v. Atty.
Edwin Pascua, A.C. No. 5095, November 28, 2007, En
Banc).
Effect of failure to submit Report
Notary’s negligence in failing to submit his notarial
report will not affect the admissibility as evidence of an
instrument he notarized (Tirol, 2010). Parties who
appear before a notary public to have their documents
notarized should not be expected to follow up on the
submission of the notarial reports. They should not be
made to suffer the consequences of the negligence of the
Notary Public in following the procedures prescribed by
the Notarial Law (Destreza v. Atty. Riñoza-Plazo, G.R. No.
176863, October 30, 2009).
Duties of a Notary Public
1. To keep a notarial register
2. To make the proper entry or entries in his notarial
register touching his notarial acts in the manner
required by the law
3. To send the copy of the entries to the proper clerk of
court within the first 10 days of the month next
following
4. To affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of
his commission, as required by law
5. To forward his notarial register, when filled, to the
proper clerk of court
6. To make report, within reasonable time to the
proper judge concerning the performance of his
duties, as may be required by such judge
7. To make the proper notation regarding residence
certificates (Sec. 240, Rev. Adm. Code).
Notarial acts: [JAO-CAS]
1. Acknowledgments;
2. Oaths and affirmations;
3. Jurats;
4. Signature witnessing;
5. Copy certifications; and
6. Any other act authorized by the rules (Section 1(a),
Rule IV, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
NOTE: A notary public is authorized to certify the the former's knowledge of the consequences of the
affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark on an transaction requiring a notarial act;
instrument or document presented for notarization. 3. In the notary's judgment, the signatory is not acting
Also, he is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who of his or her own free will
is physically unable to sign or make a mark on an 4. If the document or instrument to be notarized is
instrument or document. (1995 Bar) considered as an improper document by the Rules on
Notarial Practice.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT JURAT
Act of one who has That part of an affidavit Instances when Notary public is disqualified to
executed a deed, in going in which the notary notarize:
to some competent officer public or officer certifies 1. When he is a party to the instrument or document
or court and declaring It that the instrument was that is to be notarized;
to be his act or deed sworn to before him. 2. When he will receive, as a direct or indirect result,
any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest,
The notary public or It is not part of a cash, property, or other consideration, except as
officer taking the pleading but merely provided by the Rules on Notarial Practice and by
acknowledgment shall evidences the fact that law; or
certify that the person the affidavit was 3. When he is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor,
acknowledging the properly made. descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity
instrument or document of the principal within the fourth civil degree.
is known to him and he is
the same person who Q: Is a notary public authorized to sign on behalf of
executed it and a person who is physically unable to sign or make a
acknowledged that the mark on an instrument or document? (1995 Bar)
same is his free act and A: YES. It likewise falls within the powers of a notary
deed. public, provided: (1) The notary public is directed by the
Two-fold purpose: To Purpose: Gives the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his
authorize the deed to be document a legal behalf; (2) The signature of the notary public is affixed
given in evidence without character. in the presence of 2 disinterested and unaffected
further proof of its witnesses to the instrument or document; (3) Both
execution, and, to entitle it witnesses sign their own names; (4) The notary public
to be recorded. writes below his signature: “Signature affixed by notary
in the presence of (names and addresses of person and
Where used: Where used: 2 witnesses)”; and (5) The notary public notarizes his
1. To authenticate an 1. Affidavits; signature by acknowledgment or jurat(Sec. 1(c), Rule IV,
agreement between two 2. Certifications; A.M. 02-8-13-SC).
or more persons; or 3. Whenever the person
2. Where the document executing makes a Q: Dandoy alleged that Atty. Edayan notarized: (a) a
contains a disposition of statement of facts or Special Power of Attorney executed by his father,
property. attests to the truth of an Jacinto S. Dandoy, in favor of a certain Antoine Cyrus
event, under oath. C. Garzo (Garzo) granting the latter authority to
offer as collateral two (2) parcels of land located in
E.g. The acknowledgment E.g. An affidavit San Juan, Siquijor; and (b) a Deed of Extrajudicial
in a deed of lease of land. subscribed before a Settlement of Real Estate of Dandoy's late
notary public or public grandmother, Eutiquia Sumagang, wherein his
official authorized for father was also one of the parties. According to
the purpose. Dandoy, Jacinto could not have been present before
NOTE: In notarial wills, acknowledgment is required, respondent because he already passed away. He
not merely a jurat. added that, through the SPA and the Deed, Garzo was
able to mortgage the two (2) parcels of land as
Limitations to the performance of notarial acts security for a ₱400,000.00 loan. The mortgage was,
1. If the person involved as signatory to the instrument however, foreclosed and the mortgaged properties
or document is not in the notary's presence were not redeemed to the great prejudice of Dandoy
personally at the time of the notarization; and his siblings. Should Atty. Edayan be held
2. If the person involved as signatory to the instrument administratively liable?
or document is not personally known to the notary A: YES. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides
public or otherwise identified by the notary public that a notary public should not notarize a document
through competent evidence of identity as defined by unless the signatory to the document is in the notary's
the Rules on Notarial Practice presence personally at the time of the notarization, and
3. The document is blank or incomplete; personally known to the notary public or otherwise
4. An instrument or document is without appropriate identified through competent evidence of identity. In
notarial certification this case, Atty. Edayan, as duly found by the IBP, was
remiss in the faithful observance of his duties as a notary
Instances when Notary public may refuse to public when he failed to confirm the identity of the
notarize: person claiming to be Jacinto through the competent
1. The notary knows or has good reason to believe that evidence of identity required by the 2004 Notarial Rules.
the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or Records show that Jacinto passed away on July 13, 1999,
immoral; and therefore, clearly could not have appeared before
2. The signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in respondent to sign and execute the two (2) documents.
the mind of the notary public reasonable doubt as to (Dandoy v. Atty. Edayan, A.C. No. 12084, June 6, 2018,
PERLAS-BERNABE).

UST BAR OPERATIONS

32 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
Q: Nicanor Triol and his sister, Grace, are co-owners
of a land. Triol decided to sell the land to a Leonardo
Caparas but failed, as he could not obtain the
signature of Grace who was already residing in the
United States at that time. Subsequently, Triol
discovered that a Deed of Absolute Sale was
executed and notarized by Atty. Agcaoili. Is Atty.
Agcaoili liable for violating the 2004 Notarial Rules?
A: YES. Under Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial
Rules, a notary public is not allowed to notarize a
document unless the persons who signed the same are
the very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth
of what are stated therein. The purpose of this
requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party
and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act
and deed. Here, both Nicanor Triol and Grace could not
have personally appeared before Atty. Agcaoili, since
Grace was already residing at the U.S. at the time of the
supposed notarization (Triol v. Atty. Agcaoili, A.C. No.
12011, June 26, 2018, PERLAS-BERNABE).
A community tax certificate is NOT a competent
evidence of identity
A community tax certificate or cedula is no longer
considered as a valid and competent evidence of identity
not only because it is not included in the list of
competent evidence of identity under the Rules; more
importantly, it does not bear the photograph and
signature of the person appearing before notaries public
which the Rules deem as the more appropriate and
competent means by which they can ascertain the
person's identity (Unite v. Atty. Guzman, A.C. No. 12062,
July 02, 2018, PERLAS-BERNABE).
SANCTIONS
Punishable acts under Notarial Practice Law
1. Acts or otherwise impersonates a notary public;
2. Obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the seal,
notarial register, or official records of a notary
public; and
3. Solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a notary
public to commit official misconduct (Sec. 1, Rule XII,
Rule on Notarial Practice).
NOTE: Notarizing documents without the requisite
commission therefore constitutes malpractice, if not the
crime of falsification of public documents (St. Louis
Laboratory High School Faculty And Staff V. Dela Cruz,
A.C. No. 6010. August 28, 2006).
Q: Collantes alleged that Atty. Mabuti notarized a
document entitled "Memorandum of Agreement"
dated October 10, 2009 in the City of Manila. He
discovered that Atty. Mabuti was not commissioned
as a notary public in the City of Manila for the years
2008 and 2009. A Certification issued by the
Notarial Section of the Office of the Clerk of Court
and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila attested to the same. Is Atty. Mabuti
administratively liable for violation of the 2004
Notarial Rules?
A: YES. A lawyer who performs a notarial act without
such commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the
laws, specifically, the Notarial Rules. Here, Atty. Mabuti
notarized the subject document, "Memorandum of
Agreement," without being commissioned as a notary
public at the time of notarization. Atty. Mabuti’s
transgressions of the Notarial Rules also have a bearing
33
on his standing as a lawyer. A lawyer who notarizes a
document without a proper commission violates his
lawyer's oath to obey the law. He makes it appear that
he is commissioned when he is not. He thus indulges in
deliberate falsehood that the lawyer's oath forbids. This
violation falls squarely under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and
Canon 7 of the CPR (Collantes v. Atty. Mabuti, A.C. No.
9917, January 14, 2019, PERLAS-BERNABE).
JUDICIAL ETHICS
The New Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) for the
Philippine Judiciary, adopted from the universal
declaration of standards for ethical conduct embodied in
the Bangalore Draft, took effect on June 1, 2004
supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code
of Judicial Conduct. Provided, however, that in case of
deficiency or absence of specific provisions in the NCJC,
the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Code of Judicial
Conduct shall be applicable in a suppletory character
(2007, 2009 Bar).
Purpose of adoption of the NCJC
1. To update and correlate the code of judicial conduct
and canons of judicial ethics adopted for the
Philippines.
2. To stress the Philippines’ solidarity with the
universal clamor for a universal
Six canons under NCJC [I3-PE-CD]
1. Independence (Canon 1, NCJC)
2. Integrity (Canon 2, NCJC)
3. Impartiality (Canon 3, NCJC)
4. Propriety (Canon 4, NCJC)
5. Equality (Canon 5, NCJC)
6. Competence and Diligence (Canon 6, NCJC)
Duties of the judiciary
1. Duty to be above reproach and to appear above
reproach (Sec. 1, Canon 2, NCJC)
2. Duty to be impartial (Canon 3, NCJC)
3. Duty to avoid improprieties and appearance of
improprieties (Sec. 1, Canon 4, NCJC)
4. Duty of financial transparency and duty to avoid
financial conflicts of interest (Sec. 7, Canon 4, NCJC)
5. Duty to be efficient, fair and prompt (Sec. 5, Canon 6,
NCJC)
6. Duty to be free from favor, bias, or prejudice (Sec. 1,
Canon 3, NCJC)
INDEPENDENCE
CANON 1. Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to
the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair
trial. A judge shall, therefore, uphold and exemplify
judicial independence in both its individual and
institutional aspects.
Judges must reject pressure by maintaining
independence from, but not limited to the following:
1. Independence from public officials – the public
laid their confidence on the fact that the official is
mentally and morally fit to pass upon the merits of
their varied intentions.
2. Independence from government as a whole–
avoid inappropriate connections and any situation
that would give rise to the impression of the
existence of such inappropriate connections.
3. Independence from family, social, or other
relationships– avoid sitting in litigation where a
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
near relative is a part of or counsel; be independent
from judicial colleagues (Sec. 2) and avoid such
actions as may reasonably tend to wake the
suspicion that his social or business relations
constitute an element in determining his judicial
course.
4. Independence from public opinion– the only guide
of the official is the mandate of law.
The term “judge’s family” includes:
1. Judge’s spouse
2. Son/s
3. Daughter/s
4. Son/s-in-law
5. Daughter/s-in-law
6. Other relatives by consanguinity or affinity within
the sixth civil degree, or
7. Any person who is a companion or employee of the
judge and who lives in the judge’s household (NCJC
Annotated, PhilJA).
NOTE: When the judge is related to one of the parties
within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, a
judge’s disqualification to sit in a case is mandatory.
The highest degree of independence is required of
judges. He must be independent in decision-making. He
cannot consult with staff and court officials. However, he
can ask colleagues purely academic or hypothetical
questions but not to the extent of asking them to decide
a case. Every judge must decide independently, even in
collegial court. While there may be discussions and
exchange of ideas among judges, the judge must decide
on the basis of his own, sole, judgment (Funa, 2009).
NOTE: Any attempt, whether successful or not, to
influence the decision-making process of another judge,
especially one who is of lower rank and over whom a
judge exercises supervisory authority constitutes
serious misconduct (NCJC Annotated, PhilJA). A judge is
entitled to entertain personal views on political
questions. But to avoid suspicion of political
partisanship, a judge shall not make political speeches,
contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates
for political office or participate in other partisan
political activities (Canon 5, Rule 5.10, Code of Judicial
Conduct).
Filing of SALN
The obligation of members of the Judiciary to file their
respective SALNs is not only a statutory requirement
but forms part of the mandatory conduct expected of
a judge so that an "honorable competent and
independent Judiciary exists to administer justice and
thus promote the unity of the country, the stability of
government, and the wellbeing of the
people"(Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11,
2018). The filing of SALN is important for purposes of
transparency and accountability that failure to
comply with such requirement may result not only in
dismissal from public service but also in criminal
liability (Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11,
2018).
INTEGRITY
CANON 2. Integrity is essential not only to the
proper discharge of the judicial office, but also to
the personal demeanor of judges.
Presumption regarding judges
34
Judges are presumed honest and men of integrity,
unless proven otherwise (People v. Bocar, G.R. No. L-
9050, July 30, 1955).
NOTE: The sacrosanct image of a court dispensing
justice is mirrored in its very own personnel (OCA v.
Court Stenographer III Capistrano, A.M. No. P-13-3147,
July 2, 2014, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Those in the Judiciary serve as sentinels of justice, and
any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably
affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the
people's confidence in it. The Institution demands the
best possible individuals in the service and it had never
and will never tolerate nor condone any conduct which
would violate the norms of public accountability, and
diminish, or even tend to diminish, the faith of the
people in the justice system (Judge Lagado and
Empuesto v. Clerk II Leonido, A.M. No. P-14-3222, August
12, 2014, PERLAS-BERNABE).
NOTE: A judge’s personal behavior, both in the
performance of his duties and in his daily life, must be
free from any appearance of impropriety in all activities
as to be beyond reproach.
Q: A complaint was filed against Judge Mantua for
improper use of his sala, because he turned it into
his residential and dwelling place, and for
immorality, because he engaged in an extramarital
affair with his mistress.Te stimonies of Mah-Arevalo
and Nuñez demonstrated how Judge Mantua
paraded his mistress in full view of his colleagues,
court personnel, and even the general public by
bringing her to fiestas and other public places. Can
Judge Mantua be administratively liable?
A: YES. SC Administrative Circular No. 3-92 explicitly
states that the Halls of Justice may only be used for
functions related to the administration of justice and for
no other purpose. Similar thereto, Section 3, Part I of
A.M. No. 01-9-09-SC also provides for similar
restrictions regarding the use of the Halls of Justice.
Judge Mantua used his chambers in the Hall of Justice as
his residential and dwelling place, Further, Judge
Mantua is guilty of Immorality. It was adequately
proven that Judge Mantua engaged in an extramarital
affair with his mistress, which is not only a violation of
the moral standards expected of the members and
employees of the judiciary but is also a desecration of
the sanctity of the institution of marriage which the
Court abhors and is, thus, punishable (Mah-Arevalo v.
Judge Mantua, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2360, November 19, 2014,
PERLAS-BERNABE).
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. While
judges should possess proficiency in law in order that
they can 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.
Judge Javellana, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601, November 13,
2001).
In pending or prospective litigations before them, judges
should be careful to avoid anything that may tend to
awaken the suspicion that their personal, social or
sundry relations could influence their objectivity
(Sibayan-Joaquin v Judge. Javellana, A.M. No. RTJ-00-
1601, November 13, 2001).
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
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.
Principle of cold neutrality of an impartial judge
While a judge should possess proficiency in law in order
that he can competently construe and enforce the law, it
is more important that he should act and behave in such
a manner that the parties before him should have
confidence in his impartiality. Thus, it is not enough that
he decides cases without bias and favoritism. Nor is it
sufficient that he in fact rids himself of prepossessions.
His actuations should moreover inspire that belief
(Rosauro v. Judge Villanueva Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-99-1433,
June 26, 2000).
NOTE: A judge has both duties: the duty of rendering a
just decision; and, doing it in a manner free from
suspicion as to his fairness and as to his integrity (Query
of Executive Judge Estrada on the conflicting views of
RTC-Judges Masadao And Elizaga Re: Criminal Case No.
4954-M, A.M. No. 87-9-3918-RTC, October 26, 1987). A
judge must exercise prudence and restraint and should
reserve personal views and predilections to himself so
as not to stir up suspicions of bias and unfairness (OCA
V. JudgeFloro, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, March 31, 2006).
Meaning of “duty to sit”
It means that a judge must ensure that he will not be
unnecessarily disqualified from a case (Agpalo, 2009). A
judge cannot inhibit himself as he pleases. A decision to
inhibit must be based on good, sound or ethical grounds,
or for just and valid reasons. It is not enough that a party
cast some tenuous allegations of partiality at the judge
(Cruz v. Mijares, G.R. No. 154464, September 11, 2008).
Rule of necessity
It states that a judge is not disqualified to sit in a case
where there is no other judge available to hear and
decide the case. Furthermore, when all judges will be
disqualified as a result, it will not be permitted to
destroy the only tribunal with the power in the
premises. The doctrine operates on the principle that a
basic judge is better than no judge at all. It is the duty of
the disqualified judge to hear and decide the case
regardless of objections or disagreements (Parayno v.
Meneses, G.R. No. 112684, April 26, 1994).
No absolute prohibition against judges from making
comments
Not all comments are impermissible. Judges may
express their open-mindedness regarding a pending
issue in cases where the judges’ comments do not
necessarily favor one side over the other. What is
equally important is that he should avoid any conduct
that casts doubt on his impartially (Castillo v. Juan, G.R.
No. L-39516-17, January 28, 1975). There is danger not
only of being misquoted, but also of compromising the
rights of the litigants in the case (Castillo v. Juan, G.R. No.
L-39516-17, January 28, 1975).
Types of disqualification
1. Mandatory or compulsory disqualification
2. Voluntary disqualification or inhibition
Disqualification vs. Inhibition
DISQUALIFICATION INHIBITION
35
There are specific The rule only provides
grounds enumerated broad basis for
under the rules of court inhibition.
for disqualification.
The judge has no The rule leaves the
discretion; mandatory matter to the judge’s
sound discretion
The right of a party to seek the inhibition or
disqualification of a judge who does not appear to be
wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent in
handling the case must be balanced with the latter’s
sacred duty to decide cases without fear of repression.
Thus, it was incumbent upon a lawyer to establish by
clear and convincing evidence the ground of bias and
prejudice in order to disqualify a Judge from
participating in a particular trial (Judge Madrid v. Atty.
Dealca, A.C. No. 7474, September 09, 2014).
Grounds for mandatory disqualification
1. When he, or his wife, or child is pecuniarily
interested as heir, legatee, creditor, or otherwise;
2. When he is related to either party within the 6 th
degree of consanguinity or affinity or to counsel
within the 4th civil degree;
3. When he has been an executor, guardian,
administrator, trustee, or counsel; or
4. When he has presided in an inferior court where his
ruling or decision is subject to review, without the
written consent of the parties (Rule 137, RRC).
Requirements for a judge to continue hearing a case
despite the existence of reasons for
disqualifications
1. The bona fide disclosure to the parties in litigation;
and
2. The express acceptance by all the parties of the
cited reason as not material or substantial.
Q: In a verified complaint, Kathy said that Judge
Florante decided a petition for correction of entry
involving the birth record of her grandson, Joshua,
who happened to be child of Judge Florante’s
daughter, Pilita. Judge Florante insisted that he
committed no wrong since the proceeding was non-
adversarial and since it merely sought to correct an
erroneous entry in the child’s birth certificate. Is
Judge Florante liable? (2011 Bar)
A: YES. Sec. 5, Canon 3 provides that: “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: “xx 6. 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.” This is considered as a MANDATORY
INHIBITION. Strict compliance with the rules on
disqualification is required.
Voluntary inhibition of a judge
The judge may in his discretion inhibit himself, for just
and valid reasons other than the grounds for mandatory
disqualification. The rule on voluntary disqualification
or inhibition is discretionary upon the judge on the basis
of his conscience (Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay
Katarungan Foundation v. Leoncio M. Janolo, Jr., G.R. No.
180543, July 27, 2010). A decision to disqualify himself is
not conclusive and his competency may be determined
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
on application for mandamus to compel him to act. A
judge’s decision to continue hearing a case in which he
is not legally prohibited from trying notwithstanding
challenge to his objectivity may not constitute reversible
error (Masadao and Elizaga Re Criminal Case No. 4954-
M, A.M. No. 87-9-3918-RTC, October 26, 1987).
NOTE: The filing of an administrative case against a
judge does not automatically disqualify him from sitting
in a case. It must be shown that there are other acts or
conducts by the judge which constitute a ground for his
disqualification (Aparicio v. Andal, G.R. Nos. 86587-93,
July 25, 1989; Medina v. Judge De Guia, A.M. No. RTJ-88-
216, March 1, 1993).
It must be filed before rendition of the judgment and
it cannot be raised on appeal. Otherwise, the parties
are deemed to have waived any objection regarding the
impartiality of the judge (Government vs. Heirs of Abella,
G.R. No. 25009, September 8, 1926).
Q: Judge Nacy personally witnessed a vehicular
accident near his house. Later, the Reckless
Imprudence case was raffled to his sala. Is there a
valid ground for his inhibition? (2012 Bar)
A: YES, under Canon 3, Sec. 5 (a), a judge should decide
a case on the basis of the evidence presented before him
and not on extraneous matters. This tendency will be for
him to decide the case based on his personal knowledge
and not necessarily on the basis of the evidence that will
be presented. The judge, however, is not precluded from
testifying about his personal knowledge of the case.
After, disqualifying himself, he can be a presented as a
witness in the case before the substitute judge.
PROPRIETY
CANON 4. Propriety and the appearance of propriety
are essential to the performance of all the activities
of a judge Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
The judge’s own perception of motives is not relevant
when considering appearance of impropriety (Arban v.
Judge Borja, A.M. No. R-281-RTJ, August 26,1986).
Appearance of impropriety
Impropriety occurs when the conduct of a judge creates
in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability
to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity,
impartiality and competence is impaired (Dionisio v.
Judge Escano, A.M. No. RTJ 98-1400. February 1, 1999).
NOTE: Acts done by a judge which are not illegal may
still constitute a violation of this rule.
Instances that constitute impropriety or appearance
of impropriety: (1) Hearing cases on a day when he is
supposed to be on official leave; (2) Photograph
showing the judge and a subordinate coming out of a
hotel together even if there was no clear evidence of
sexual congress between them; (3) Joking remark made
by a judge to a litigant suggesting that the litigant prove
he harbored no ill feelings towards the judge; (4) Being
in the constant company with a lawyer tends to breed
intimacy and camaraderie to the point that favors in the
future may be asked from the judge which he may find
hard to resist; (5) Use of humiliating and insensitive
expressions is improper as such intemperate language
detracts from how he should conduct himself; (6)
Having financial and business dealings that tend to
reflect adversely on the court's impartiality, interfere
with the proper performance of judicial activities, or
36
increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to
come before the court; (7) Using judicial office to
advance private interests; (8) Giving impression that he
can be influenced to use the judicial office to advance the
private interests of others; (9) Using the court facilities
to promote family business is improper; and (10)
Allowing a non-court employee to have access to
confidential court records is improper as such would
convey the impression that she is the one who can
influence the judge’s official function.
Use of social media
NCJC does not prohibit a judge from joining or
maintaining an account in a social networking sites.
Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
recognizes that judges, like any other citizen, are
entitled to freedom of expression. However, the same
provision also imposes a correlative restriction on
judges: in the exercise of their freedom of expression,
they should always conduct themselves in a manner that
preserves the dignity of the judicial office and the
impartiality and independence of the Judiciary
(Lorenzana v. Judge Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200, April
2, 2014).
Permitted Extra-Judicial Activities of a Judge: (1)
Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities
concerning the law, the legal system, the
administration of justice or related matter; (2) 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; (3) Engage
in other activities if such activities do not detract from
the dignity of the judicial office or otherwise interfere
with the performance of judicial duties (Sec. 10, Canon 4,
NCJC).
Prohibited Extrajudicial Activities of Judges:
a. Engage in avocational, civil and charitable activities
that interfere with the performance of of judicial
duties or detract from the dignity of the court (Rule
5.01, CJC)
b. Accept a gift, bequest, factor or loan from anyone
(Rule 5.04, CJC)
c. Use or disclose information acquired in a judicial
capacity in any financial dealing or for any other
purpose not related to judicial activities (Rule 5.05,
CJC)
d. Serve as the executor, administrator, trustee,
guardian, or other fiduciary (Rule 5.06, CJC)
XPN: For the estate, trusts, or person of a member of
the immediate family, and only if such service will
not interfere with the proper performance of judicial
duties (Rule 5.06, CJC)
e. Engage in the private practice of law (Rule 5.07, CJC)
f. Engage in practice of profession prohibited by the
Constitution or when practice conflicts with judicial
functions (Rule 5.07, CJC).
g. Accept appointment or designation to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions (Rule 5.09, CJC)
h. Make political speeches, contribute to party funds,
publicly endorse candidates for political office or
participate in other partisan political activities (Rule
5.10, CJC).
EQUALITY
CANON 5. Ensuring equality of treatment to all
before the courts is essential to the due performance
of the judicial office.
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties,
by words or conduct, manifests bias or prejudice
towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.
Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate
consideration for all persons without differentiation on
any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper
performance of such duties. Judges shall require
lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from
manifesting bias or prejudice based on irrelevant
grounds.
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
CANON 6. Competence and diligence are
prerequisites to the due performance of judicial
office.
A judge should be the epitome of competence, integrity
and independence to be able to render justice and
uphold public confidence in the legal system. He must be
conversant with basic legal principles and well-settled
doctrines. He should strive for excellence and seek the
truth with passion (Rino v. Judge Cawaling, A.M. No. MTJ-
02-1391, June 7, 2004).
Q: Rodriguez claimed that in a civil case, Judge Noel
issued, on July 10, 2015, a 72-hour temporary
restraining order enjoining him from causing any
act that might cause violence and to maintain the
status quo in GDITI. A Notice of special raffle was
also issued by Judge Noel and was received by
Rodriguez's aunt on the same date. To his surprise,
however, on July 14, 2015, the 72-hour TRO was
extended for another twenty (20) days, or way
beyond the 72-hour period. Should Judge Noel be
held administratively liable?
A: YES. Judge Noel had been remiss in the issuance of the
July 14, 2015 Order extending the TRO and the
scrupulous observance of the requisites therefor. The
observance of the law, which Judge Noel ought to know,
is required of every judge. When the law is sufficiently
basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it;
failure to consider a basic and elementary rule, a law or
principle in the discharge of his duties, a judge is either
too incompetent and undeserving of the position and the
title he holds or is too vicious that the oversight or
omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave
abuse of judicial authority. By his actuations, Judge Noel
has shown his lack of integrity and diligence, thereby
blemishing the image of the judiciary (Rodriguez v. Judge
Noel, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-18-2525, June 25, 2018, PERLAS-
BERNABE).
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all
activities (Sec. 1, Canon 6, NCJC). Judges shall take
reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their
knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for
the proper performance of judicial duties (Sec. 3, Canon
6, NCJC). Judges shall perform all judicial duties,
including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently,
fairly and with reasonable promptness (Sec. 5, Canon 6,
NCJC).
Q: During a judicial audit it was discovered that
Judge Buenavista had a combined case load of more
than 600 hundred cases in the 2 courts he presided
and that he had submitted decisions beyond the
mandated 90-day period. There were also cases in
which there have been no action since the date of
their filling. Judge Buenavista states the reason for
37
his belated actions were his old age, his failing
eyesight, the death of his wife the year prior, and the
fact that he presided over two RTCs in a period of 4
years. The OCA recommended that Judge Buenavista
be held administratively liable and fined 10,000 for
failing to decide cases and failing to manage the RTC.
Is the OCA correct?
A: YES, the OCA is correct. Judge Buenavista is guilty of
gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of
administrative sanctions. Under the 1987 Constitution,
trial judges are mandated to decide and resolve cases
within 90 days from submission. Corollary to this
constitutional mandate, Section 5, Canon 6 of the NCJC
requires judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently,
fairly, and with reasonable promptness. An inexcusable
failure to decide a case within the prescribed 90-day
period constitutes gross inefficiency, warranting the
imposition of administrative sanctions (Re: Report on
the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, A.M. No. 06-9-
525-RTC, June 13, 2012, PERLAS-BERNABE).
NOTE: The mandate to promptly dispose of cases or
matters also applies to motions or interlocutory matters
or incidents pending before the magistrate.
Unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending
incident is a violation of the gross inefficiency norms of
judicial conduct and constitutes that warrants the
imposition of an administrative sanction against the
defaulting magistrate (OCA v. Judge Tormis, A.M. No. MTJ-
12-1817, March 12, 2013).
Q: Pacifico Velasco was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan for Graft and Corruption. But the
hearing date for his arrest was pushed multiple
times due to his ailing health and multiple surgeries.
Leonardo Velasco, the private complainant, now
charges the Associate Justice Villaruz, Jr., Justice
Quiroz, and Justice Martires of the Sandiganbayan
with grave misconduct for the multiple
postponements stating that their actions caused
undue delay for the execution of sentence. Are the
Associate Justices administratively liable?
A: NO, Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or
deliberate violation of a rule of law or a standard of
behavior. To constitute an administrative offense,
misconduct should relate to or be connected with the
performance of the official functions of a public officer.
In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established
rule must be established. Here, the actions of the Justices
respecting the execution of the final judgment against
the accused were shown to be in respectful deference to
the Courts action on the various petitions filed by the
former, who apparently exhausted what he perceived
were valid available remedies under the law (Re:
Complaint of Velasco, A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-25-SB-J,
January 15, 2013, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: On February 2, 2000, Dulang filed an ejectment
complaint before the MCTC presided by Judge
Regencia. On May 4, 2009, Dulang moved for the
resolution of the ejectment case given that the same
had been filed as early as year 2000 and had already
been submitted for resolution. However,
notwithstanding the summary nature of the
ejectment proceedings, Judge Regencia rendered a
judgment dismissing the ejectment case only on
February 18, 2011 or more than 11 years after its
filing. Should Judge Regencia be held
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
administratively liable for undue delay in rendering
a decision?
A: YES. Judge Regencia should be held administratively
liable for undue delay in rendering a decision. Section 5,
Canon 6 of the NCJC provides that judges shall perform
all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved
decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable
promptness. Here, the case was already submitted for
resolution. Being an ejectment case, it is governed by the
Rules of Summary Procedure which clearly sets a period
of 30 days from the submission of the last affidavit or
position paper within which a decision thereon must be
issued. Despite this, Judge Regencia rendered judgment
only on February 18, 2011. While rules prescribing the
time within which certain acts must be done are
indispensable to prevent needless delays in the orderly
and speedy disposition of cases and, thus, should be
regarded as mandatory, the Court has nevertheless been
mindful of the plight of judges and has been
understanding of circumstances that may hinder them
from promptly disposing of their businesses and, as
such, has allowed extensions of time due to justifiable
reasons. However, Judge Regencia failed to proffer any
acceptable reason in delaying the disposition of the
ejectment case, thus, making her administratively liable
for undue delay in rendering a decision (Dulang v. Judge
Regencia, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1841, June 2, 2014, PERLAS-
BERNABE).
NOTE: 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 (Sec. 6, Canon 6, NCJC).
Power to discipline members of the bench
The Court en banc has the power to discipline all judges
of lower courts including justices of the Court of Appeals
(Section 11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
Disbarment of judges and justices
Judges and justices, being lawyers, may also be
disbarred, if found guilty of certain crimes and/or other
causes for disbarment under the Rules of Court. Justices
of the Supreme Court in order to be disbarred must first
be impeached in accordance with the Constitution.
A judge may be disciplined for acts committed
before his appointment to the judiciary
It is settled that a judge may be disciplined for acts
committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary. In
fact, even the new Rule itself recognizes this, as it
provides for the immediate forwarding to the Supreme
Court for disposition and adjudication of charges against
justices and judges before the IBP, including those filed
prior to their appointment to the judiciary (Heck v. Judge
Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, 23 February 2004).
Disciplinary and criminal actions NOT a substitute
for judicial remedies
Disciplinary and criminal actions against a judge, are not
complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for,
judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary.
Resort to and exhaustion of 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
38
closed (Maquiran v. Judge Grageda, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1888,
February 11, 2005).
Q: The CA issued a decision enjoining AMALI from
continuing with its project construction pending the
determination of its petition for declaration of right
of way against WWRAI. While a petition for review
on certiorari challenging the decision of the CA
Justices was pending with the SC, AMA Land filed an
administrative disciplinary action against CA
Justices. Will the administrative case prosper?
A: NO. A decision on the validity of the proceedings and
propriety of the orders of the CA Justices in this
administrative proceeding would be premature.
Additionally, administrative liability will only attach
upon proof that the actions of the CA Justices were
motivated by bad faith, dishonesty or hatred, or
attended by fraud or corruption, which were not
sufficiently shown to exist in this case. Neither was bias
as well as partiality established. Bad faith or malice
cannot be inferred simply because the judgment or
order is adverse to a party. Resort to administrative
disciplinary action prior to the final resolution of the
judicial issues involved constitutes an abuse of court
processes that serves to disrupt rather than promote the
orderly administration of justice and further clog the
courts' dockets. Those who seek relief from the courts
must not be allowed to ignore basic legal rules and abuse
court processes in their efforts to vindicate their rights
(Re: Verified Complaint of Ama Land, A.M. OCA IPI NO. 12-
202-CA-J, January 15, 2013, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Institution of proceedings for the discipline of
judges
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 a verified complaint filed before the Supreme
Court supported by:
a. Affidavit of persons who have personal
knowledge of the facts alleged therein; or
b. Documents which may substantiate said
allegations.
3. Anonymous complaint supported by public records
of indubitable integrity filed with the Supreme
Court.
Serious/Grave/Gross Misconduct – implies malice or
wrongful intent, not mere error of judgment. Judicial
acts complained of:
a. must be corrupt or inspired by an intention to
violate the law; or
b. were in persistent disregard for well-known
legal rules.
In order to differentiate grave misconduct from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule,
must be manifest in the former (OCA v. Judge Amor, A.M.
No. RTJ-08-2140, October 7, 2014, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Gross Inefficiency – implies negligence, incompetence,
ignorance and carelessness. A judge would be
inexcusably negligent if he failed to observe in the
performance of his duties that diligence, prudence and
circumspection which the law requires in the rendition
of any public service.
Grave abuse of authority – implies a misdemeanor
committed by a public officer, who, under color of his
office, wrongfully inflicts upon a person any bodily
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
harm, imprisonment, or other injury; it is an act
characterized with cruelty, severity, or excessive use of
authority (OCA v. Judge Amor, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140,
October 7, 2014, PERLAS-BERNABE).
Insubordination – refers to a refusal to obey some
order, which a superior officer is entitled to give and
have obeyed, and imports a willful or intentional
disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of
the employer (Judge Arabani v. Arabani and Bakil, A.M.
No. SCC-10-14-P, February 21, 2017, PERLAS-BERNABE).
GROUNDS
Administrative penalties imposed on judges are both
punitive and corrective (2011 Bar).
Quantum of evidence: Ground for removal of a judicial
officer should be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Serious charges
1. Bribery, direct or indirect
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. 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
11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits
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
7. Simple misconduct
Light charges
1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct
2. Gambling in public
3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with
pending case/cases in his court
4. Undue delay in the submission of monthly reports
Confidentiality of proceedings
Proceedings against judges of regular and special courts
and justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan shall be private and confidential, but a
copy of the decision or resolution of the Court shall be
attached to the record of the respondent in the Office of
the Court Administrator (Sec 12, Rule 140, RRC).
Suspension pendente lite not applicable to judges
While it is true that preventive suspension pendente lite
does not violate the right of the accused to be presumed
innocent as the same is not a penalty, the rules on
39
preventive suspension of judges, not having been
expressly included in the Rules of Court, are amorphous
at best. Moreover, it is established that any
administrative complaint leveled against a judge must
always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its
consequential effects are, by their nature, highly penal,
such that the respondent judge stands to face the
sanction of dismissal or disbarment. As aforementioned,
the filing of criminal cases against judges may be used as
tools to harass them and may, in the long run, create
adverse consequences (Re: Conviction of Judge Angeles,
A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC, January 31, 2008).
Grievance procedure in the Rules of Court is NOT
applicable to justices and judges
Complaints against justices and judges are filed with the
Supreme Court which has exclusive administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof
pursuant to Section 6, Art. VIII of the Constitution. The
Court en banc has the power to discipline all judges of
lower courts including justices of the Court of Appeals
(Section 11, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution).
As a matter of practice, the Supreme Court has assigned
complaints against Municipal or Metropolitan Trial
Judges to an Executive Judge of a Regional Trial Court
and complaints against judges of Regional Trial Courts
to a justice of the Court of Appeals, while a complaint
against a member of the Court of Appeals would
probably be assigned to a member of the Supreme Court
for investigation, report and recommendation. Retired
Supreme Court Justices are now tasked for this purpose.
Rules on the liability of judges
GR: A judge is not liable administratively, civilly, or
criminally, when he acts within his legal powers and
jurisdiction, even though such acts are erroneous so
long as he acts in good faith. In such a case, the remedy
of aggrieved party is not to file an administrative
complaint against the judge but to elevate the error to a
higher court for review and correction.
XPN: Where an error is gross or patent, deliberate and
malicious, or is incurred with evident bad faith; or when
there is fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.
Promotion as Judge does not exculpate liability
Promotion as a judge during the pendency of
administrative case committed while still a Clerk of
Court cannot be considered either as a mitigating or an
exculpatory circumstance to excuse him from any
administrative liability. A judge is still bound by the
same principle enshrined in Section 1, Article XI of the
Constitution, which states that a public office is a public
trust, and all public officers and employees must at all
times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency,
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives
(OCA v. Atty. Melchor, Jr., A.M. No. P-06-2227, August 19,
2014).
Requisites for an administrative complaint against a
retiring judge or justice to be dismissed outright:
1. The complaint must have been filed within six (6)
months from the compulsory retirement of the judge
or justice;
2. The cause of action must have occurred at least a
year before such filing; and
3. It is shown that the complaint was intended to harass
the respondent (Resolution Prescribing Measures to
Protect Members of the Judiciary from Baseless and
Unfounded Administrative Complaints, A.M. No. 03-
10-01-SC, November 3, 2003).
UST BAR OPERATIONS
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

LEGAL FORMS

DEMAND LETTER (UNPAID RENT)

LETTER DATE

NAME OF LESSOR
Address of Lessor

MR./MRS./MS. (NAME OF LESSOR):

LETTER OF DEMAND

RE: UNPAID RENT

My client, (NAME OF CLIENT), the landlord of (DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY), endorsed to me the matter of your
overdue accountability in the amount of (AMOUNT IN WORDS) (₱______________), representing your unpaid rentals.

Despite my client’s several demands, you refused to settle the account up to present.

In view thereof, you are hereby given TEN (10) DAYS from receipt hereof to pay the foregoing amount of
(AMOUNT IN WORDS) (₱______________), plus _____% interest starting (DUE DATE OF PAYMENT), and _____% collection
fee; otherwise, I shall be constrained to file the necessary legal action against you to collect the foregoing amount, plus
_____% attorney’s fees thereon as well as litigation expenses.

If you have any inquiry, please contact me at (CONTACT DETAILS).

Sincerely,

________________________________________
ATTY. (NAME OF COUNSEL)
Counsel for (Name of Client)

AUTHORIZATION LETTER

NAME OF SENDER
Address of Sender

LETTER DATE

NAME OF RECEIVER
Address of Receiver

DEAR MR./MRS./MS. (NAME OF RECEIVER):

AUTHORIZATION LETTER

I, (NAME OF SENDER), hereby authorize my (RELATIONSHIP), (NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE), to act on my

behalf in all matters dealing with (SUBJECT MATTER), to file and receive (DOCUMENTS/COPIES/PAYMENTS),
including signing of all documents relating to these matters. Any and all acts of (NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE) shall have
the same effect as acts of my own.

This letter of authorization will be in effect from (STARTING DATE) to (END DATE). If you have any question, feel
free to contact me on (CONTACT DETAILS OF SENDER) for any further clarification needed.

Sincerely,

_________________________________________
NAME OF SENDER
Title of Sender
Date of Signature

LEASE CONTRACT

CONTRACT OF LEASE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

UST BAR OPERATIONS

40 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019

This CONTRACT OF LEASE is made and executed at the City of _____, this day of _______________, 20____, by and between:

(NAME OF LESSOR), of legal age, single/married to (NAME OF SPOUSE, IF ANY), Filipino, and with residence
and postal address at (Address), hereinafter referred to as the LESSOR.

-AND-

(NAME OF LESSEE), Filipino and with residence and postal address at (ADDRESS), hereinafter referred to as
the LESSEE.

WITNESSETH; That

WHEREAS, the LESSOR is the owner of THE LEASED PREMISES, a residential property situated at (Address of
property to be leased);

WHEREAS, the LESSOR agrees to lease-out the property to the LESSEE and the LESSEE is willing to lease the same;

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, the LESSOR leases unto the LESSEE and
the LESSEE hereby accepts from the LESSOR the LEASED premises, subject to the following:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. PURPOSES: That premises hereby leased shall be used exclusively by the LESSEE for residential purposes only and
shall not be diverted to other uses. It is hereby expressly agreed that if at any time the premises are used for other
purposes, the LESSOR shall have the right to rescind this contract without prejudice to its other rights under the law.

2. TERM: This term of lease is for ONE (1) YEAR. from (Date) to (Date) inclusive. Upon its expiration, this lease may be
renewed under such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by both parties, written notice of intention
to renew the lease shall be served to the LESSOR not later than seven (7) days prior to the expiry date of the period herein
agreed upon.

3. RENTAL RATE: The monthly rental rate for the leased premises shall be in (AMOUNT IN WORDS) (P______________),
Philippine Currency. All rental payments shall be payable to the LESSOR.

4. DEPOSIT: That the LESSEE shall deposit to the LESSOR upon signing of this contract and prior to move-in an amount
equivalent to the rent for THREE (3) MONTHS or the sum of (AMOUNT IN WORDS) (P______________), Philippine
Currency, wherein the two (2) months deposit shall be applied as rent for the 11th and 12th months and the remaining
one (1) month deposit shall answer partially for damages and any other obligations, for utilities, such as Water,
Electricity, CATV, Telephone, Association Dues or resulting from violation(s) of any of the provision of this contract.

5. DEFAULT PAYMENT: In case of default by the LESSEE in the payment of the rent, such as when the checks
are dishonored, the LESSOR at its option may terminate this contract and eject the LESSEE. The LESSOR has the right to
padlock the premises when the LESSEE is in default of payment for ONE (1) MONTH and may forfeit whatever rental
deposit or advances have been given by the LESSEE.

6. SUB-LEASE: The LESSEE shall not directly or indirectly sublet, allow or permit the leased premises to be occupied in
whole or in part by any person, form or corporation, neither shall the LESSEE assign its rights hereunder to any other
person or entity and no right of interest thereto or therein shall be conferred on or vested in anyone by the LESSEE
without the LESSOR'S written approval.

7. PUBLIC UTILITIES: The LESSEE shall pay for its telephone, electric, cable TV, water, Internet, association dues and
other public services and utilities during the duration of the lease.

8. FORCE MAJEURE: If whole or any part of the leased premises shall be destroyed or damaged by fire, flood, lightning,
typhoon, earthquake, storm, riot or any other unforeseen disabling cause of acts of God, as to render the leased premises
during the term substantially unfit for use and occupation of the LESSEE, then this lease contract may be terminated
without compensation by the LESSOR or by the LESSEE by notice in writing to the other.

9. LESSOR'S RIGHT OF ENTRY: The LESSOR or its authorized agent shall after giving due notice to the LESSEE shall
have the right to enter the premises in the presence of the LESSEE or its representative at any reasonable hour to examine
the same or make repairs therein or for the operation and maintenance of the building or to exhibit the leased premises
to prospective LESSEE, or for any other lawful purposes which it may deem necessary.

10. EXPIRATION OF LEASE: At the expiration of the term of this lease or cancellation thereof, as herein provided, the
LESSEE will promptly deliver to the LESSOR the leased premises with all corresponding keys and in as good and tenable
condition as the same is now, ordinary wear and tear expected devoid of all occupants, movable furniture, articles and
effects of any kind. Non-compliance with the terms of this clause by the LESSEE will give the LESSOR the right, at the
latter's option, to refuse to accept the delivery of the premises and compel the LESSEE to pay rent therefrom at the same
rate plus Twenty Five (25) % thereof as penalty until the LESSEE shall have complied with the terms hereof. The same

UST BAR OPERATIONS

41 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
penalty shall be imposed in case the LESSEE fails to leave the premises after the expiration of this Contract of Lease or
termination for any reason whatsoever.

11. JUDICIAL RELIEF: Should any one of the parties herein be compelled to seek judicial relief against the other, the
losing party shall pay an amount of ONE HUNDRED (100)% of the amount claimed in the complaint as attorney's fees
which shall in no case be less than FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱50,000.00) in addition to other cost and damages which
the said party may be entitled to under the law.

12. This CONTRACT OF LEASE shall be valid and binding between the parties, their successors-in-interest and assigns.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, parties herein affixed their signatures on the date and place above written.

_____________________________ ______________________________
(NAME OF LESSOR) (NAME OF LESSEE)
Lessor Lessee

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_______________________ ______________________
WITNESS NO. 1 WITNESS NO. 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF ______) SS.

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the (Province/City/Municipality) of _____________, personally appeared the
following persons, with their respective Community Tax Certificates as follows:

NAME C.T.C. NO. DATE / PLACE ISSUED

1. (NAME OF LESSOR) _____________ ________________________
2. (NAME OF LESSEE) _____________ ________________________

Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
to me that the same are their free act and voluntary deed.

This instrument, consisting of (__) pages, including the page on which this acknowledgment is written, has been
signed on the left margin of each and every page thereof by the concerned parties and their witnesses, and sealed with
my notarial seal.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on this ___day of __________________20__ at_______________.

__________________________________
NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Notary Public

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE is made, executed and entered into by:

(NAME OF SELLER), of legal age, single/married to (NAME OF SPOUSE, IF ANY), Filipino, and with residence
and postal address at (ADDRESS OF SELLER), hereinafter referred to as the SELLER

-AND-

(NAME OF BUYER), Filipino and with residence and postal address at (ADDRESS OF BUYER), hereinafter
referred to as the BUYER.

WITNESSETH;

WHEREAS, the SELLER is the registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements located at (Address of
property to be sold) and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT Number) containing a total area of (Land
Area of Property in Words) (000) SQUARE METERS, more or less, and more particularly described as follows:

UST BAR OPERATIONS

42 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019

TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. XXXX

(Technical Description Of The Property On The Title) Example: A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot 20 Blk 54 of
consolidation subdivision plan (LRC) Pcs-13265, being a portion of the consolidation of Lots 4751-A and 4751-B (LRC)
Psd-50533, Lot 3, Psd-100703, Lot 1, Psd-150980, LRC Rec. Nos. Nos. N-27024, 51768, 89632, N-11782, N-13466, and
21071 situated in the Bo. of San Donisio, Mun of Paranaque, Prov of Rizal, Is. of Luzon. Bounded on NE., point 4 to 1 by
Road Lot 22, on.to the point of beginning; containing an area of (280) square meters more or less."

WHEREAS, the BUYER has offered to buy and the SELLER has agreed to sell the above mentioned property for
the amount of (AMOUNT IN WORDS) (₱ ______________) Philippine Currency;

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of (AMOUNT IN WORDS) (₱ ______________) Philippine
Currency, hand paid by the vendee to the vendor, the SELLER DO HEREBY SELL, TRANSFER, and CONVEY by way of
Absolute Sale unto the said BUYER, his heirsand assigns, the certain parcel of land together with all the improvements
found thereon, freefrom all liens and encumbrances of whatever nature including real estate taxes as of the date of this
sale.

____________________________ _____________________________
(NAME OF SELLER) (NAME OF BUYER)
Seller Buyer
WITH MARITAL CONSENT:
______________________________________ _____________________________________
NAME OF SELLER’S SPOUSE NAME OF BUYER’S SPOUSE
Seller's Spouse Buyer's Spouse

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_______________________ ______________________
WITNESS NO. 1 WITNESS NO. 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF ______) SS.

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the (Province/City/Municipality) of _____________, personally appeared the
following persons, with their respective Community Tax Certificates as follows:

NAME C.T.C. NO. DATE / PLACE ISSUED

1. (NAME OF SELLER) _____________ ________________________
2. (NAME OF BUYER) _____________ ________________________

Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
to me that the same are their free act and voluntary deed.

This instrument, consisting of (__) pages, including the page on which this acknowledgment is written, has been
signed on the left margin of each and every page thereof by the concerned parties and their witnesses, and sealed with
my notarial seal.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on this ___day of __________________20__ at_______________.

__________________________________
NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Notary Public

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, (NAME OF PRINCIPAL), single/married to (NAME OF PRINCIPAL’S SPOUSE, IF ANY), of legal age, with
residence and postal address at (ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL) do hereby APPOINT (NAME OF AGENT), single/married to
(NAME OF AGENT’S SPOUSE, IF ANY), likewise of legal age, with postal address at (ADDRESS OF AGENT) whose
specimen signature appears below, to be my true and lawful Attorney-in-fact, for me and in my name, place and stead,
and for my own use and benefit to do the following acts and deeds:

UST BAR OPERATIONS

43 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

1. To sell, offer for sale, and come to an agreement as to the purchase price and thereafter to sign for me and in my name
and receive payment from the sale of my property more particularly described as follows: (Technical Description of
the Property on the Title)

HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said Attorney-in-fact full power and authority to do and perform all
and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents
and purposes as I might or could lawfully do if personally present, and hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said
attorney-in-fact shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of these presents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand at _____________, this ___ day of _______________, 20___.

______________________________________ _________________________________
(NAME OF PRINCIPAL) (NAME OF AGENT),
Principal Attorney-In-Fact

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_______________________ ______________________
WITNESS NO. 1 WITNESS NO. 2

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______________ at _______________, Affiant exhibiting to me his/her
________________ issued on ________________ and expiring on ________________.

__________________________________
NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Notary Public

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF

NON-FORUM SHOPPING

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, (NAME), of legal age, (CITIZENSHIP),single/married, and a resident of (ADDRESS), after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, hereby, depose and say:

1. That I am the ______________________________in the above-entitled case and have caused this ___________________________________
to be prepared; that I read and understood its contents which are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or
based on authentic records.

2. That I have not commenced any action of proceeding involving the same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any tribunal or agency, and that, if I should learn thereafter that a similar action
or proceeding has been filed or is pending before these courts of tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that the fact to
the Court within five (5) days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature at _____________, this ___ day of _______________, 20_____.

______________________________
(NAME OF AFFIANT)
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______________ at _______________, Affiant exhibiting to me his/her
________________ issued on ________________ and expiring on ________________.

__________________________________
NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Notary Public

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

NOTICE OF HEARING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

UST BAR OPERATIONS

44 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________________,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. _________________
(Naghahabla) (Kaso Sibil Blg.)
For __________________________
Vs. (Para)
__________________________________,
Defendant,
(Hinahabla)

NOTICE OF HEARING
(ABISO NG PAGDINIG)

YOUR CASE IS SET for hearing before the Presiding Judge of this Court on _________________________ at
___________________________________________.

(Ang iyong kaso ay diringgin ng Pinunong hukuman ng Hukumang ito sa _____________________________, ganap na
________________________________.)

YOU MUST ATTEND THE HEARING, IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND BECAUSE IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
FOR YOU TO DO SO, YOU MAY AUTHORIZE A REPRESENTATIVE WHO IS NOT A LAWYER TO APPEAR FOR YOU.
FOR THIS PURPOSE YOU SHOULD FILL UP FORM 5-SCC (SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY).

(KINAKAILANGAN NINYONG DUMALO SA PAGDINIG. Kung hindi kaya ng katawan ninyo ang pagdalo nang
personal sa pagdinig ng iyong kaso, maaari kang magpadala ng iyong kinatawan na hindi abogado sa pagdinig. Sa
ganitong layunin, punuan ninyo ang Form 5-SCC [Natatanging Gawad-Kapangyarihan – Special power of attorney.])

WITNESS the HON. __________________________________, Presiding Judge of this court, this ____ day of ___________________,
20___, at _______________________, Philippines.

(Saksi si Kgg. __________________________, Pinunong Hukuman ng Hukumang ito, ngayong _____________________, 20____
ditto sa _______________________________, Pilipinas.)

__________________________________________
Branch Clerk of Court

(Sangay na Kawani ng Hukuman)

NOTE: FOR INQUIRIES, CALL TEL. #____________

(Tala: Para sa katanungan tumawag sa Korte sa Tel. Blg. _____________.)

EXPLANATION IN MOTIONS

EXPLANATION
The foregoing motion is being filed to the Honorable Court with copy theoreof furnished to other party by
registered mail due to distance of the undersigned to said other party, making personal filing and service thereof not
practicable.

_________________________________________
(NAME OF COUNSEL)
Counsel for Plaintiff/Defendant

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT (2018 BAR)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH X
MARIA TAMAD,
Petitioner, Civil Case No. XXXXX
For Nullity of Marriage
JUAN TAMAD,
Respondent,

x---------------------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER

UST BAR OPERATIONS

45 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

I, MARIA TAMAD, of legal age, married, and resident of 123 Tampingco St., San Lorenzo, Makati, petitioner in this
case, after having duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say that:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The person examining me is ATTY. PEDRO DELA CRUZ with office address at _____________ Makati City. The
examination is being held at the same address. I am answering her questions fully conscious that I do so under oath and
may face criminal liability for false testimony and perjury.

PURPOSE: This affidavit/testimony of petitioner MARIA TAMAD is being offered to prove that the respondent
JUAN TAMAD contracted marriage twice, the first on ______________, and the second one on _________________ with petitioner,
while the respondent’s previous marriage with was still valid and has not yet legally dissolved. The petitioner’s testimony
is also offered to prove the legal basis for the declaration of nullity of the petitioner’s marriage with the respondent, the
same being bigamous and therefore VOID.

1. Q. Please state your name and other personal circumstances for the record.
A. MARIA TAMAD.
2. Q. Are you the same MARIA TAMAD, the petitioner in this case?
A. Yes sir.

3. Q. Do you know a certain JUAN TAMAD?

A. Yes sir. He was the man I married on _____________.
4. Q. How did you meet respondent JUAN TAMAD?
A. ____________________________________.
5. Q. Are you still cohabiting with JUAN TAMAD?
A. No, we have been living separately for five (5) years now since ___________.
6. Q. Do you have of proof your marriage with JUAN TAMAD?
A. Yes sir, I have a NSO Certified marriage contract as my Exhibit "A".
7. Q. Did you have children with JUAN TAMAD?
A. No, we have no children.
8. Q. What is the reason for your separation?
A. JUAN TAMAD was unfaithful to me for several times during our marriage. He was also often jobless, drunk
often with his "barkada", and failed to provide for me and his family.
9. Q. How about a certain JUANANG MAPURI do you know her?
A. Yes sir, I discovered very recently that he was the woman JUAN first married on _____________.
10. Q. Do you have proof of this previous marriage between JUAN TAMAD AND JUANANG MAPURI?
A. Yes sir, I have their NSO certified marriage contract which is my Exhibit "B"
11. Q. Would you know the status of the marriage between JUAN and JUANANG when JUAN contracted his
second marriage with you on __________?
A. Yes, attorney. JUAN's first marriage with JUANANG MAPURI was still valid and existing when he married
me on __________.
12. Q. Would you know the status of the marriage between JUAN TAMAD AND JUANANG MAPURI now?
A. Yes attorney. Their marriage is still existing. I have even heard that JUAN TAMAD AND JUANANG MAPURI
got back together two (2) years ago and they had a child together.
13. Q. Do you have proof of your allegations?
A. Yes, Attorney. I have a NSO certified Birth Certificate of the child of JUAN TAMAD AND JUANANG MAPURI
got which is my Exhibit "C".
14. Q. Do you have common properties with the respondent during your marriage?
A. None sir.
15. Q. Did you have a pre-nuptial agreement with the respondent regarding your properties?
A. None sir.
16. Q. What are you asking this court with respect to this case?
A. I am praying that the Honorable Court would grant my petition for Declaration of Nullity of my marriage
with JUAN TAMAD on the grounds that our marriage is void ab initio for being BIGAMOUS.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature at Makati City, this ___ day of _______________, 2019.

______________________________
MARIA TAMAD
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me in the City of Makati this ____ day of ____ 2019, affiant exhibited to
me her Comm. Certificate No. 03861183 issued at Manila on March 4, 2009.

__________________________________
NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Notary Public

UST BAR OPERATIONS

46 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

SWORN ATTESTATION CLAUSE

I, ATTY. PEDRO DELA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having duly sworn to in accordance with law do
hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the counsel of record of the petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2. That I personally conducted the foreging judicial affidavit of the petitioner;
2. That I hereby certify that I faithfully recorded the questions I asked and the answer of the witness;
3. That I likewise certify that neither I nor any person then present coached the witness regarding the latter’s
answer.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature at _____________, this ___ day of _______________, 2019.

_________________________________________
ATTY. PEDRO DELA CRUZ
Counsel for Petitioner

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______________ at _______________, Affiant exhibiting to me his
________________ issued on ________________ and expiring on ________________.

__________________________________
NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Notary Public

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

JURAT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL AFFIANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this _____________, by _____________ who exhibited to me (his/her) Community
Tax Certificate No. _____________ issued at _____________, Philippines on _____________.

_________________________________
NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Notary Public
Doc. No. ______;
Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

JURAT FOR JOINT AFFIANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this _____________, by _____________ who exhibited to me (his/her) Community
Tax Certificate No. _____________ issued at _____________ on _____________ and by _____________ who exhibited to me (his/her)
Community Tax Certificate No. _____________ issued at _____________ on _____________.

__________________________________
NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Notary Public
Doc. No. ______;
Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT – By an individual – One Party Instrument

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF _________________________) S.S

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the (Province/City/Municipality) of _____________, personally appeared
_____________ with Community Tax Certificate No. _____________ issued on _____________ at _____________ (and Tax Identification

UST BAR OPERATIONS

47 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
No. (T.I.N.) _____________), known to me and to me known to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument
which (he/she) acknowledged to me as (his/her) free and voluntary act and deed, consisting of only ______ (____) page/s,
including this page in which this Acknowledgement is written, duly signed by (him/her) and (his/her) instrumental
witnesses on each and every page hereof.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this _____________ at _____________, Philippines.

__________________________________
NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Notary Public
Doc. No. ______;
Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT – By Individuals Multi-Party Instrument

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF ______) SS.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the (Province/City/Municipality) of _____________, personally appeared the
following persons, with their respective Community Tax Certificates as follows:

NAME C.T.C. NO. DATE / PLACE ISSUED

1. _____________ _____________ ___________________________
2. _____________ _____________ ___________________________
3. _____________ _____________ ___________________________

all known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument which they
acknowledged to me to be their free and voluntary act and deed, consisting of only ______ (____) page/s, including this page
in which this Acknowledgement is written, duly signed by them and their instrumental witnesses on each and every page
hereof.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this _____________ at _____________, Philippines.

__________________________________
NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC
Notary Public
Doc. No. ______;
Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME (TO FILE AN ANSWER)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________________,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. _________________
For __________________________
-versus-
__________________________________,
Defendant,

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER

Defendant to the Honorable Court most respectfully state:

1. They were given by the Honorable Court to submit their Answer in the above-entitled case fifteen (15) days from
service of the summons or until (ORIGINAL DATE);

2. As they are still in the process of gathering evidence including documents and testimonies of witnesses to be
incorporated to their Answer, they request that they be given additional fifteen (15) days or until (REQUESTED DATE)
to submit the Answer.

PRAYER

UST BAR OPERATIONS

48 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 UST LAW PRE-WEEK NOTES 2019
WHEREFORE, defendants most respectfully pray that the Honorable Court GRANTS this Motion and give the
defendants additional fifteen (15) days or until (REQUESTED DATE) to submit their Answer and supporting documents,
if any. Other reliefs which are just and equitable in the premises are also prayed for.

(PLACE OF EXECUTION), Philippines, (DATE OF EXECUTION).

ATTY. (NAME OF COUNSEL)

Counsel for the Defendant
Address of Counsel on Record
Roll No._________
IBP No. ___________________
PTR No. ____________, issued on (DATE OF ISSUANCE)
MCLE compliance Cert. No. __________________________

MOTION TO DISMISS (FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________________,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. _________________
For __________________________
-versus-
__________________________________,
Defendant,

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Respondent, _____________ INC., through the undersigned counsel, appearing especially and solely
for this purpose, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully moves for the dismissal of the Complaint on the following
ground that THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDING
PARTY.

DISCUSSION

A cursory reading of the Summons and Return of Service would readily show that the copies of the Summons dated
08 May 2001 and the Complaint and its corresponding annexes were allegedly delivered and tendered upon the Movant
_____________ INC. through a certain Maria Clara alleged to be the authorized personnel of Movant _____________ INC., Bacolod
City on 29 August 2001. Copies of the said Summons and Return of Service that form part of the records on the case are
hereto pleaded as integral part of this Motion;

Said service of Summons, however, constitutes an improper service of summons amounting to lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the herein Movant Corporation _____________ INC. since the summons was improperly served upon a
person who is not one of those persons named or enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
upon whom service of summons shall be made;

The material provision on the service of summons provided for in Section 11 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure reads as follows:

"Section 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity.- When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or
association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the
president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel"

It bears no further emphasis that the service of the summons was done on a person who is not included in the
exclusive enumeration provided for under the said Section, as service was done only on an alleged authorized personnel
of the Movant Corporation;

This new revision of the Rules of Court for the service of summon is a clear departure from the old rule as stated
in Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which provided that:

"SECTION 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. - If the defendant is a corporation
organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made on the president,
manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors."

It must be equally noted that the changes in the new rules are substantial and not just general semantics as the
new rules restricted the service of summons on persons clearly enumerated therein. In effect, the new provision makes
it more specific and clear such that in the case of the word "manager", it was made more precise and changed to "general
manager", "secretary" to "corporate secretary", and excluding therefrom agent and director;

UST BAR OPERATIONS

49 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019
 LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons for a domestic corporation or
partnership is under the new rules, limited and more clearly specified, departure from which is fatal to the validity of the
service of the summons and resulting in the failure of the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent
corporation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Complaint with respect to the Movant Corporation be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

(PLACE OF EXECUTION), Philippines, (DATE OF EXECUTION).

ATTY. (NAME OF OPPOSING COUNSEL)

Counsel for the Respondent
Address of Counsel on Record
Roll No._________
IBP No. ___________________
PTR No. ____________, issued on (DATE OF ISSUANCE)
MCLE compliance Cert. No. __________________________

MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________
_______________________________
__________________________________,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. _________________
For __________________________
-versus-
__________________________________,
Defendant,

MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT

Plaintiff, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states:

1.The records of the Honorable Court show that Defendant (NAME OF DEFENDANT) was served with copy of the
summons and of the complaint, together with annexes thereto on (DATE OF SERVICE);
2.Upon verification however, the records show that Defendant (NAME OF DEFENDANT) has failed to file his Answer
within the reglementary period specified by the Rules of Court despite the service of the summons and the complaint;
3.As such, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant (NAME OF DEFENDANT) be declared in default pursuant to the Rules
of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed to render judgment as the complaint may warrant.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant (NAME OF DEFENDANT) be declared in default pursuant
to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed to render judgment as the complaint may warrant. Other
relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

(PLACE OF EXECUTION), Philippines, (DATE OF EXECUTION).

ATTY. (NAME OF OPPOSING COUNSEL)

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Address of Counsel on Record
Roll No._________
IBP No. ___________________
PTR No. ____________, issued on (DATE OF ISSUANCE)
MCLE compliance Cert. No. __________________________

UST BAR OPERATIONS

50 ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2019