LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS JUDICIAL ETHICS ............................... 71
LEGAL ETHICS ...................................... 1
I. Legal Ethics ................................................ 2
A. Practice of Law ............................................... 2
1. Concept .................................................... 2
2. Qualifications for Admission to the Bar
3 B. Disqualifications of Justices and Judges
3. Continuing Requirements for
Membership in the Bar .......................... 5
4. Appearance of Non-Lawyers................ 7
5. Prohibited Practice of Non-Lawyers
and Appearance without Authority ..... 9
6. Public Officials and the Practice of Law;
Prohibitions and Disqualifications ...... 9
7. Lawyer’s Oath ....................................... 10
B. Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer
under the Code of Professional
Responsibility [CPR] .................................... 11
1. To Society (Canons 1-6) ...................... 11
2. To the Legal Profession ...................... 19
3. To the Courts (Canons 10-13) ........... 25
4. To the Clients (Canons 14-22) ........... 34
C. Suspension, Disbarment, Discipline of
Lawyers........................................................... 53
1. Nature and Characteristics of
Disciplinary Actions against Lawyers 53
2. Grounds ................................................. 54
3. Proceedings............................................ 56
4. Recoverable amounts; intrinsically
linked to professional engagement .... 57
5. Other Matters ........................................ 57
D. Readmission to the Bar ............................... 60
1. Lawyers Who Have Been Suspended 60
2. Lawyers Who Have Been Disbarred . 60
3. Lawyers who have been Repatriated . 61
E. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) .......................................................... 61
1. Purpose................................................... 61
2. Requirements......................................... 61
3. Compliance ............................................ 62
4. Exemptions............................................ 62
5. Sanctions ................................................ 63
F. Notarial Practice ........................................... 64
1. Qualifications of a Notary Public ...... 64
2. Term of Office of a Notary Public .... 64
3. Powers and Limitations ....................... 65
4. Notarial Register ................................... 67
5. Jurisdiction of Notary Public and Place
of Notarization...................................... 68
6. Competent Evidence of Identity ....... 68
7. Sanctions ................................................ 68
8. Relation to the Code of Professional
Responsibility ........................................ 68
9. Revocation of Commission ................ 69
II. Judicial Ethics ........................................... 72
A. Sources ............................................................ 72
1. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary (Bangalore Draft)
72
2. Code of Judicial Conduct .................... 72
[Rule 137, ROC] ............................................ 72
1. Compulsory ............................................ 72
2. Voluntary ................................................ 73
C. Administrative Jurisdiction over Judges and
Justices ............................................................ 75
1. Supreme Court ...................................... 75
2. All Other Courts ................................... 75
D. Initiation of Complaint against Judges and
Justices ............................................................ 76
E. Discipline of Members of the Judiciary .... 76
1. Supreme Court ...................................... 76
2. Lower Courts and Justices of Court of
Appeals, and Sandiganbayan, and Court
of Tax Appeals (Rule 140) ................... 77
3. Grounds .................................................. 78
FORMS ................................................... 82
III. PRACTICAL EXERCISES ....................... 83
A. Demand and Authorization Letters ........... 83
1. Demand Letter ...................................... 83
2. Authorization Letter ............................. 83
B. Simple Contracts: Lease and Sale ............... 84
1. Contract of Lease .................................. 84
2. Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle ........... 85
3. Bill of Sale (Personal Property) ........... 86
4. Unilateral Deed of Sale of Registered
Land......................................................... 87
5. Unilateral Deed of Sale of Unregistered
Land......................................................... 88
6. Bilateral Deed of Sale of Registered
Land......................................................... 89
C. Special Power of Attorney........................... 90
1. Special Power of Attorney for Sale of
Real Property ......................................... 90
2. Special Power of Attorney for Purchase
of Real Property .................................... 91
3. Special Power of Attorney for
Representation in Actions ................... 92
D. Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum
Shopping......................................................... 93
E. Notice of Hearing and Explanation in
Motions ........................................................... 95
1. Request for and Notice of Hearing.... 95
2. Proof of Service by Registered Mail with
Explanation ............................................ 96
F. Judicial Affidavit............................................ 97
G. Notarial Certificates: Jurat and
Acknowledgement ........................................ 99
 LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

1.
Jurat ......................................................... 99
2.
Acknowledgment (Two-Party
Instrument) ............................................ 99
3. Acknowledgment (Affiant Representing
a Corporation) ..................................... 100
4. Scilicet ................................................... 101
5. Details of Notary Public .................... 101
6. Details of Counsel .............................. 101
H. Motions for Extension of Time, to Dismiss,
and to Declare in Default.......................... 102
1. Motion for Extension of Time......... 102
2. Motion to Dismiss .............................. 104
3. Motion to Declare in Default ........... 105
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

LEGAL ETHICS
Legal and Judicial Ethics

Page 1 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
I. Legal Ethics
A. Practice of Law
1. Concept
Definition
a.
The practice of law is any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. It is to give
notice or render any kind of service, which device or
service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill [Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No.
100113 (1991)].
According to Justice Padilla, in his dissent in Cayetano v.
Monsod, the following factors are considered in
determining whether there is practice of law:
1. Habituality – implies customarily or habitually
holding one's self out to the public as a lawyer.
2. Application of law, legal principles, practice
or procedure – calls for legal knowledge, training
and experience.
3. Compensation – implies that one must have
presented himself to be in the active and
continued practice of the legal profession and
that his professional services are available to the
public for compensation, as a service for his
livelihood or in consideration of his said services.
4. Attorney-client relationship
The test is the activity, NOT who/what he or she is.
When lawyers teach law, they are considered engaged
in the practice of law. Their actions as law professors
must be measured against the same canons of
professional responsibility as the fact of their being
law professors is inextricably entwined with the fact
that they are lawyers. [Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty:
”Restoring Integrity: A statement by the Faculty of the UP
College of Law on the allegations of plagiarism and
misrepresentation in the SC”, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC
(2011)].
b. Privilege, not Right
The right to practice law is not a natural or
constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited
to persons of good moral character with special
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The
exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of
integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment,
and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the
Page 2 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
court. A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot
practice law even if he passes the bar examinations
[Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. No. 1036 (2003)].
While the practice of law is not a right but a privilege,
the Court will not unwarrantedly withhold this
privilege from individuals who have shown mental
fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the
profession [In re: Michael Medado, B.M. No. 2540
(2013)].
Respondent falsely used complainant's name, identity,
and school records to gain admission to the Bar. Since
complainant — the real "Patrick A. Caronan" never
took the Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly
recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be
stricken off the Roll of Attomeys. The IBP was also
correct in ordering that respondent, whose real name
is "Richard A. Caronan," be barred from admission to
the Bar. In this case, respondent never completed his
college degree. While he enrolled at the PLM in 1991,
he left a year later and entered the PMA where he was
discharged in 1993 without graduating. Clearly,
respondent has not completed the requisite pre-law
degree. The Court does not discount the possibility
that respondent may later on complete his college
education and earn a law degree under his real name.
However, his false assumption of his brother's name,
identity, and educational records renders him unfit for
admission to the Bar. The practice of law, after all,
is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to
be granted to everyone who demands it. Rather,
it is a privilege limited to citizens of good moral
character [Caronan v. Caronan, A.C No. 11316 (2016)].
c. Profession, not Business
Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in
which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary professional but a secondary
consideration [Burbe v. Magulta, A. C. No. 99-634
(2002)].
Atty. Ancheta, should have advised complainants to
accept the judgment of the Court of Appeals and
accord respect to the just claim of the opposite party.
He should have tempered his clients' propensity to
litigate and save them from additional expense in
pursuing their contemplated action. Instead, he gave
them confident assurances that the case could still be
reopened and even furnished them a copy of his
prepared "motion to reopen case." Despite receipt of
the P30,000 acceptance fee, he did not act on his
client's case. Moreover, he prevailed upon
complainants to give him P200,000.00 purportedly to
be used to bribe the Justices of the Court of Appeals
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
in order to secure a favorable ruling, palpably showing
that he himself was unconvinced of the merits of the
case. Atty. Ancheta's misconduct betrays his lack
of appreciation that the practice of law is a
profession, not a money-making trade [Spouses
Tolentino v. Atty. Ancheta, A.C. No. No. 6387, (2016)].
2. Qualifications for Admission
to the Bar
Section 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court1. Who may
practice law. – Any person heretofore duly
admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter
admitted as such in accordance with the provisions
of this rule, and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
Sec. 2, Rule 138. Requirements for all
applicants for admission to the bar. – Every
applicant for admission as a member of the bar
must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-
one years of age, of good moral character, and a
resident of the Philippines; and must produce
before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of
good moral character; and that no charges against
him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or
are pending in any court in the Philippines.
Requisites for admission to the bar
a. Citizenship
b. Residence: his/her duties to his client and to the
court will require that he/she be readily
accessible and available
c. Age (at least 21 years old): maturity and discretion
are required in the practice of law
d. Good moral character and no charges involving
moral turpitude
The purposes for this requirement are:
1. To protect the public;
2. To protect the public image of lawyers;
3. To protect prospective clients; and
4. To protect errant lawyers from themselves
[Dantes v. Dantes, A.C. No. No. 6486 (2004)].
e. Legal education (consisting of pre-law and law
proper);
f. Pass the bar examinations
g. Take the lawyer’s oath
h. Sign the roll of attorneys.
Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become
an attorney-at-law. Two essential requisites for
1 2
Hereinafter, RoC
Page 3 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely:
his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and
his signature in the roll of attorneys [Aguirre v. Rana,
supra].
Legal Education
a. Pre-law
Sec. 6, Rule 1382. Pre-law. – An applicant for
admission to the bar examination shall present a
certificate issued by the proper government agency
that, before commencing the study of law, he or
she had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an
authorized and recognized university or college,
requiring for admission thereto the completion of
a four-year high school course, the course of study
prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or
sciences.
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his
or her Bachelor of Laws degree or its equivalent in
a foreign law school must present proof of having
completed a separate bachelor's degree course.
b. Law proper
Sec. 5, Rule 138. Additional Requirement for
Other Applicants. — All applicants for
admission other than those referred to in the two
preceding sections shall, before being admitted to
the examination, satisfactorily show that they 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.
No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws
degree in this jurisdiction shall be admitted to the
bar examination unless he or she has satisfactorily
completed the following course in a law school or
university duly recognized by the government: civil
law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law,
public and private international law, political law,
labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence,
taxation and legal ethics.
A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign
law school shall be admitted to the bar
examination only upon submission to the Supreme
Court of certifications showing: (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; and (c) completion of all the fourth year
As amended by B.M. No. 1153 (2010)
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic
program in a law school duly recognized by the
Philippine Government.
In B.M. No. No. 1552-A (2010), the Supreme Court
approved the guidelines on the legal apprenticeship
program in the Supreme Court and other collegiate
appellate courts, allowing qualified 4th year law
students to undergo the Legal Apprenticeship
Program at the said courts for at least 160 hours.
In A.M. No. 15-04-03-SC (Re Letters of Justice Jose C.
Vitug [Ret], Founding Dean of Angeles University
Foundation (AUF) School of Law, dated 7 February 2015,
and of Judge Ave A. Zurbito-Alba, Municipal Trial court,
Daraga, Albay), the Supreme Court lifted the
prohibition on the accommodation of students to
undergo on-the-job training/practicum in the lower
courts.
Legal Education Board
Under R.A. No. 7662 (Legal Education Reform Act
of 1993), the Legal Education Board (LEB) was
created in order to uplift the standards of legal
education by undertaking appropriate reforms in the
legal education system, requiring proper selection of
law students, maintaining quality among law schools,
and requiring legal apprenticeship and continuing
legal education.
It is comprised of a Chairman (preferably former
justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals), 4
regular members (a representative of the IBP, a
representative of the Philippine Association of Law
Schools (PALS), a representative from the ranks of
active law practitioners, a representative from the law
students' sector, and the Secretary of the Department
of Education or his representative as an ex
officio member).
The functions of the Board include:
a. Administering the legal education system in the
country;
b. Supervising law schools in the country;
c. Setting the standards of accreditation for law
schools, taking into account, among others, the
size of enrollment, the qualifications of the
members of the faculty, the library and other
facilities, without encroaching upon the academic
freedom of institutions of higher learning;
d. Accrediting law schools that meet the standards
of accreditation;
e. Prescribing minimum standards for law
admission and minimum qualifications and
compensation of faculty members;
Page 4 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
f. Prescribing the basic curricula for the course of
study aligned to the requirements for admission
to the Bar, law practice and social consciousness;
g. Establishing a law practice internship as a
requirement for taking the Bar which a law
student shall undergo with any duly accredited
private or public law office or firm or legal
assistance group anytime during the law course
for a specific period that the Board may decide,
but not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months.
For this purpose, the Board shall prescribe the
necessary guidelines for such accreditation and
the specifications of such internship which shall
include the actual work of a new member of the
Bar; and
h. Adopting a system of continuing legal education.
The LEB promulgated LEB Memorandum Order No
1, Series of 2011 to set forth the policies and standards
of legal education and manual of regulations for law
schools.
In Dec. 2016, LEB promulgated LEB Memorandum
Order No. 7, Series of 2016 which required the
Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhilSAT) as
a pre-requisite for admission to the basic law courses
leading either to a Bachelor of Laws or Juris Doctor
degree beginning school year 2017-2018.
Bar Examinations
All applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of
the Supreme Court the evidence required under Sec.
2 at least 15 days before the beginning of the
examination. If the applicant is not covered by Secs.
3 and 4, they shall also file within the same period the
affidavit and certificate required by Sec. 5 [Sec. 7, Rule
138, RoC].
The clerk of the Supreme Court shall publish the
notice of applications for admission in newspapers
published in Filipino, English and Spanish, for at least
10 days before the beginning of the examination [Sec.
8, Rule 138, RoC].
Examinees shall not bring papers, books or notes into
the examination rooms. The questions shall be the
same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English
or Spanish, shall be given to each examinee.
Examinees shall answer the questions personally
without help from anyone.
Upon verified application made by an examinee
stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will be
difficult to read his answers without much loss of
time, the Supreme Court may allow such examinee to
use a typewriter in answering the questions. Only
noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be used.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

and the individual members of the committee on the

The committee of bar examines shall take such other. He is at the same time a deputy clerk of court.
precautions as are necessary to prevent the
substitution of papers or commission of other frauds. Not later than February 15th after the examination, or
Examinees shall not place their names on the as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the
examination papers. No oral examination shall be committee shall file its report on the result of such
given [Sec. 10, Rule 138, RoC]. examination. The examination papers and notes of
the committee shall be filed with the clerk and may
Examination for admission to the bar of the there be examined by the parties in interest, after the
Philippines shall take place annually in the City of court has approved the report [Sec. 15, Rule 138,
Manila. They shall be held in 4 days to be designated RoC].
by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners
[Sec. 11, Rule 138, RoC]. Candidates who have failed the bar examinations 3
Political and times shall be disqualified from taking another
Morning
International Law examination, provided that they may take a 4th and 5th
First Day examination if they show to the satisfaction of the
Labor and Social
Afternoon court that they have enrolled in and passed regular 4th
Legislation
Second Morning Civil Law year review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review
Day Afternoon Taxation course in a recognized law school for each
Third Morning Mercantile Law examination [Sec. 16, Rule 138, RoC, as amended by
Day Afternoon Criminal Law B.M. No. 1161 (2004)].
Morning Remedial law
Fourth No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member
Legal Ethics and Practical
Day Afternoon of the committee, and during examination, the
Exercises
candidates shall not communicate with each other nor
A candidate is deemed to have passed his shall they give or receive any assistance. Any violator
examinations successfully if he obtained a general shall be barred from the examination, and the same to
average of 75% in all subjects, without falling below count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary
50% in any subject [Sec. 14, Rule 138, RoC]. action may be taken in the discretion of the court [Sec.
13, Rule 138, RoC].
The relative weights of the subjects used in
determining the average are as follows: Under R.A. No. 1080 (An Act Declaring the Bar and
Subject % Board Examinations as Civil Service Examinations),
as amended by R.A. No. 1844, the Bar examinations
Civil Law 15%
is declared as civil service examinations equivalent to:
Labor and Social Legislation 10%
1. First grade regular examination for appointment
Mercantile Law 15%
to a position which requires proficiency in law;
Criminal Law 10% and
Political and International Law 15% 2. Second grade regular examination for
Taxation 10% appointment to a position which does not require
Remedial Law 20% proficiency in law.
Legal and Ethics and Practical Exercises 5%

Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of 3. Continuing Requirements

bar examiners to be appointed by the Supreme Court.
This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the
Supreme Court as chairman, and 8 members of the
bar, who shall hold office for a period of one year.
The names of the members of this committee shall be
published in each volume of the official reports [Sec.
12, Rule 138, RoC].
Pursuant to B.M. No. 1161 (2004), 2 examiners are
designated per bar subject.
The Bar Confidant acts as a sort of liaison officer
between the court and the Bar Chairman on one hand,
for Membership in the Bar
a. Good Moral Character
Absence of a proven conduct or act which has been
historically and traditionally considered as a
manifestation of moral turpitude. The act or conduct
need not amount to a crime; and even if it does
constitute an offense, a conviction upon a criminal
charge is not necessary to demonstrate bad moral
character although it may show moral depravity
[“Legal and Judicial Ethics” by Agpalo (2004)].

Page 5 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
This requirement is not only a condition precedent
to admission to the practice of law, its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the
practice of law. Good moral character is what a
person really is, as distinguished from good
reputation, the estimate in which he is held by the
public in the place where he is known [In the Matter of
the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In
The 2002 Bar Examinations and For Disciplinary Action
As Member of The Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M. No. 1154
(2004)].
All aspects of moral character and behavior may be
inquired into in respect of those seeking admission to
the Bar. The scope of such inquiry is, indeed, said to
be properly broader than inquiry into the moral
proceedings for disbarment. The requirement of
good moral character to be satisfied by those who
would seek admission to the bar must of
necessity be more stringent than the norm of
conduct expected from members of the general
public. The Supreme Court may deny lawyer’s oath-
taking based on a conviction for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide (hazing case). But after the
expiry of the original period of probation granted by
the trial court, he may be allowed to submit, for the
Court’s examination and consideration, relevant
evidence to show that he is a different person now,
that he has become morally fit for admission to the
ancient and learned profession of the law [In re:
Argosino, A.M. No. 712 (1997)].
Question of moral turpitude is for the Supreme Court
to decide, which is why applicants are required to
disclose any crime which they have been charged.
Concealment or withholding from the Court
information about charges and indictments is a
ground for disqualification of applicant or for
revocation of license [Agpalo 2004].
By concealing pending criminal cases, the applicant
(in a petition to take the Bar Examinations) then
flunks the test of fitness even if the cases are
ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to
impugn or affect the good moral character of the
applicant [In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar
Examinee Haron S. Meling In The 2002 Bar Examinations
and For Disciplinary Action As Member of The Philippine
Shari’a Bar, B.M. No. 1154 (2004)].
b. Citizenship
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall
be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed
by law [Sec. 14, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution].
Page 6 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Ratio: Citizenship ensures allegiance to the Republic
and its laws.
1. Reacquisition of the Privilege to
Practice Law in the Philippines under
R.A. No. 9225 or the Citizenship
Retention and Reacquisition Act of
2003
Filipino citizenship is a requirement for
admission to the bar and is, in fact, a continuing
requirement for the practice of law. The loss
thereof means termination of the petitioner’s
membership in the bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage
in the practice of law… Thus, a Filipino lawyer
who becomes a citizen of another country and
later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under
R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the
Philippine Bar. However, the right to resume the
practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225
provides that a person who intends to practice his
profession in the Philippines must apply with the
proper authority for a license or permit to engage in
such practice [In re: Petition to re-acquire the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines of Muneses, B.M. No. 2112
(2012)]
In In re: Petition to re-acquire the privilege to practice law in
the Philippines of Muneses, in pursuance to the
qualifications laid down by the Court for the practice
of law, the Office of the Bar Confidant [hereinafter,
OBC] required Muneses to submit the original or
certified true copies of the following documents in
relation to his petition:
a. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine
Citizenship;
b. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine
citizenship);
c. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines;
d. Identification Certificate issued by the Bureau of
Immigration;
e. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
f. Certification from the IBP indicating updated
payments of annual membership dues;
g. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
h. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE
office.
These documents will be submitted to the OBC and
will be reviewed by the Court en banc for resolution.
Before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship
pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 can resume his law
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
practice, he must first secure from this Court the
authority to do so, conditioned on:
a. the updating and payment in full of the annual
membership dues in the IBP;
b. the payment of professional tax;
c. the completion of at least 36 credit hours of
mandatory continuing legal education; this is
especially significant to refresh the
applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine
laws and update him of legal developments and
d. the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not
only remind him of his duties and responsibilities
as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also
renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will restore his
good standing as a member of the Philippine bar
[Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law of Dacanay,
B.M. No. 1678 (2007)].
4. Appearance of Non-Lawyers
General rule: Only members of the bar can appear and
handle cases in court
Exceptions: The following are also allowed in
exceptional circumstances:
a. Law students;
b. By an agent/friend;
c. By the litigant himself.
a. Law Student Practice Rule (Rule
138-A
A law student who has successfully completed 3rd
year of the regular four-year prescribed law
curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law
school's clinical legal education program approved by
the Supreme Court, may appear without
compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative
case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer,
to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal
clinic of the law school [Sec. 1, Rule 138-A, RoC].
The appearance of the law student shall be under the
direct supervision and control of a member of the IBP
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, RoC].
Direct supervision and control by the supervising
attorney requires his or her physical presence during
Page 7 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
the hearing [In Re: Need that law student practicing under
rule 138-A be actually supervised during trial, B.M. No. 730
(1997)].
The Rules safeguarding privileged communications
between attorney and client shall apply [Sec. 3, Rule
138-A, RoC].
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 [Sec. 4, Rule 138-A, RoC].
Sec. 34, Rule 138, RoC is clear that appearance before
the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is allowed,
irrespective of whether or not he is a law student.
Thus, a law student may appear under the
circumstances of Sec. 38, as an agent or a friend of a
party litigant, without complying with the
requirements of Rule 138-A, e.g., supervision of a
lawyer [Cruz v. Mina, G.R. No. 154207 (2007)].
b. Non-Lawyers in Courts and/or
Administrative Tribunals
1. Non-Lawyers in Courts
Pursuant to Sec. 34, Rule 138, RoC, in any court, a
party may conduct his litigation in person.
Before the MTC – A party may conduct his case or
litigation in person with the aid of an agent or friend
appointed by him.
• The agent or friend is not engaged in the practice
of law, since there is no habituality in the activity
and no attorney-client relationship exists.
In any other court – A party may conduct his
litigation personally.
A non-lawyer conducting his own litigation is bound
by the same rules in conducting the trial of his case.
He cannot, after judgment, claim that he was not
properly represented [Agpalo (2004)].
An attorney who is otherwise disqualified to practice
law, or has been disbarred or suspended from
practice, can validly prosecute or defend his own
litigation, he having as much right as that of a layman
[Danforth v. Egan, 119 N.W. 1021 (1909)].
When a person conducts his litigation in person, he is
not engaged in the practice of law [Agpalo (2004)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Sec. 34, Rule 138, RoC does not distinguish
between civil and criminal cases. However, in
criminal cases, the rule is qualified:
a. Under Sec. 1(c), Rule 115, RoC, the accused may
defend himself in person “when it sufficiently
appears to the court that he can properly protect
his rights without the assistance of counsel.”
b. Under Sec. 7, Rule 116, RoC, in determining
whether a counsel de officio should be appointed,
or, for that matter, whether a counsel de parte
should be required (conversely, whether the
accused should be allowed to defend himself in
person), the gravity of the offense and the
difficulty of the questions that may arise should
be considered.
While the right to be represented by counsel is
immutable, the option to secure the services of
counsel de parte is not absolute. The court may
restrict the accused’s option to retain a counsel de parte
if:
a. He insists on an attorney he cannot afford;
b. He chooses a person not a member of the bar;
c. The attorney declines for a valid reason (e.g.,
conflict of interest) [People v. Serzo, G.R. No.
118435 (1997)].
In criminal cases, in localities where members of the
bar are not available, the court may appoint any
person (i.e., non-lawyer), who is a resident of the
province and of good repute for probity and ability to
defend the accused, in lieu of a counsel de officio [Sec.
7, Rule 116, RoC]. In relation to Sec. 34, Rule 138, this
is only allowed in the municipal trial court.
A juridical person must always appear in court
through a duly-licensed member of the bar, except in
the MTC where it may be represented by a non-lawyer
agent.
2. Non-Lawyers in Administrative
Tribunals
There are laws which allow representation of another
by non-lawyers before such bodies:
a. Art. 222, Labor Code allows non-lawyers to
appear before the NLRC or any Labor Arbiter
if (a) they represent themselves, or (b) they
represent their organizations members.
The 2011 NLRC Rule of Procedure, promulgated
pursuant to Art 225(a), Labor Code, allows (a)
non-lawyers, who are not necessarily a party to
the case, to represent a union or members
thereof, (b) non-lawyers who are duly-accredited
Page 8 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
members of any legal aid office recognized by the
Department of Justice or IBP, and (c) non-lawyer
owners of establishments, to appear before it.
b. Under Sec. 9, Act 2259 (Cadastral Act), a
claimant may appear by himself, or by some
person in his behalf, before a cadastral court.
c. Under Sec. 50, R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law), as amended by R.A. No.
9700, responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed
to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or
their organizations in any proceedings before
the DAR: provided, however, that when there are
two or more representatives for any individual or
group, the representatives should choose only
one among themselves to represent such party or
group before any DAR proceedings
In order that these laws will not infringe upon the
power of the Supreme Court to regulate the practice
of law, the following limitations must be observed:
a. The non-lawyer should confine his work to non-
adversary contentions and should not undertake
purely legal work (i.e., examination of witness,
presentation of evidence);
b. The services should not be habitual;
c. Attorney’s fees should not be charged [Agpalo
(2004)].
c. Proceedings Where Lawyers Are
Prohibited from Appearing as
Counsels
1. In small claims cases, no attorney shall appear
in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing,
unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.
If the court determines that a party cannot
properly present his/her claim or defense and
needs assistance, the court may, in its discretion,
allow another individual who is not an attorney
to assist that party upon the latter's consent [Sec.
17, Rules of Procedure in Small Claims Cases].
2. In all katarungang pambarangay
proceedings, the parties must appear in person
without the assistance of the counsel or
representative, except for minors and
incompetents who may be assisted by their next
of kin who are not lawyers [Sec 415, R.A. No.
7160 (Local Government Code)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
5. Prohibited Practice of Non-
Lawyers and Appearance
without Authority
a. Lawyers without Authority
Under Sec. 27, Rule 138, RoC, corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so is a ground for disbarment or
suspension.
b. Persons Who Are Not Lawyers
For BOTH persons who are not lawyers AND
lawyers who appear without authority, the following
may be availed of:
• Petition for injunction
• Declaratory relief
• Contempt of court [Sec. 3 (e), Rule 71, RoC]
• Administrative complaint against the erring
lawyer or government official
• Criminal complaint for estafa against the person
who falsely represented himself as a lawyer to the
damage of another.
6. Public Officials and the
Practice of Law; Prohibitions
and Disqualifications
a. Prohibition or Disqualification of
Former Government Attorneys
General Rule: The appointment or election of an
attorney to a government office disqualifies him
from engaging in the private practice of law
Under Sec. 7(b), R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees), public officials and employees during
their incumbency shall not:
1. Own, control, manage or accept employment as
officer employee, consultant, counsel, broker,
agent, trustee or nominee / in any private
enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by
their office / unless expressly allowed by law;
2. Engage in the private practice of their profession
unless authorized by the Constitution or law,
provided that such practice will not conflict or
tend to conflict with their official functions;
Page 9 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
3. Recommend any person to any position in a
private enterprise which has a regular or pending
official transaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a
period of 1 year after resignation, retirement or
separation from public office, except in case of the
second.
The 1-year prohibition also applies to practice of
profession in connection with any matter before the
office he used to be with.
b. Public Officials Who Cannot
Practice Law or Can Practice
Law with Restrictions
Absolute prohibition
1. Judges and other officials or employees of
superior courts as [Sec. 35, Rule 148, RoC];
2. Officials and employees of the Office of the
Solicitor General [Sec. 35, Rule 148, RoC];
3. Government prosecutors [Lim-Santiago v. Sagucio,
A.C. No. 6705 (2006)];
4. President, vice-president, cabinet members, their
deputies and assistants [Sec. 15, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution];
5. Chairmen and members of constitutional
commissions [Sec. 2, Art. IX-A, 1987
Constitution];
6. Members of the Judicial and Bar Council [Sec. 2,
Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution];
7. Ombudsman and his deputies [par. 2, Sec. 8 (2),
Art. X, 1987 Constitution];
8. All governors, city and municipal mayors [Sec.
90(a), R.A. No. 7160];
9. Civil service officers or employees whose duties
require them to devote their entire time at the
disposal of the government [Catu v Rellosa, A.C.
No. 5738 (2008)];
10. Those who, by special law, are prohibited from
engaging in the practice of their legal profession.
Relative prohibition
1. No senator or member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear as
counsel before any court of justice or before the
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other
administrative bodies [Sec. 14, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution]
• The word “appearance” includes not only
arguing a case before any such body, but also
filing a pleading on behalf of a client [Ramos v.
Manalac, G.R. No. L-2610 (1951)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
• Neither can he allow his name to appear in the
pleading as part of a firm name, because the
office of an attorney being originally of agency,
amounts to the signing of a non-qualified senator
or congressman [In Re: David, AM No. 98 (1953)].
2. Sanggunian members may practice law except
during session hours and provided they shall not:
a. Appear as counsel before any court in any
civil case wherein a local government unit or
any office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party;
b. Appear as counsel in any criminal case
wherein an officer or employee of the
national or local government is accused of an
offense committed in relation to his office;
c. Collect any fee for their appearance in
administrative proceedings involving the
local government unit of which he is an
official; and
d. Use property and personnel of the
government except when the sanggunian
member concerned is defending the interest
of the government [Sec. 90(b), R.A. No.
7160].
3. Under Sec. 1, R.A. No. 910, the pension of
justices therein is provided with a condition that
no retiring justice, during the time that he is
receiving said pension shall:
a. Appear as counsel before any court in any
civil case wherein the Government or any
subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the
adverse party;
b. In any criminal case wherein and officer or
employee of the government is accused of an
offense committed in relation to his office;
or
c. Collect any fee for his appearance in any
administrative proceedings to maintain an
interest adverse to the Government, insular,
provincial or municipal, or to any of its
legally constituted officers.
4. There are civil employees whose duty do not
require that their entire time be at the disposal of
the government. Absent any express prohibition
in law, they can practice law, provided they secure
a written permit from their department head [Zeta
v Malinao, AM. No P-220(1978)].
c. Lawyers Authorized to Represent
the Government
Any official or other person appointed or
designated in accordance with law to appear for
the Government of the Philippines shall have all
the rights of a duly authorized member of the bar to
Page 10 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
appear in any case in which said government has an
interest direct or indirect [Sec. 33, Rule 138, RoC].
7. Lawyer’s Oath
An applicant who has passed the required
examination, or has been otherwise found to be
entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and
subscribe before the Supreme Court the
corresponding oath of office [Sec. 17, Rule 138, RoC].
The lawyer's oath is not a mere ceremony or
formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at
all times weigh his actions according to the sworn
promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If
all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to
the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the administration of justice will
undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone
concerned [In re: Argosino, supra].
I, ____________________ do solemnly swear
that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines; I will support the
Constitution and obey the laws as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false
or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same. I will delay no man for money or malice,
and will conduct myself as a lawyer according
to the best of my knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity as well as to courts as to
my clients; and I impose upon myself this
voluntary obligation without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me
God.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
B. Duties and
Responsibilities of a
Lawyer under the Code of
Professional
Responsibility [CPR]
Under the Sec. 20, Rule 138, RoC, it is the duty of an
attorney:
1. To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and to support the Constitution and
obey the laws of the Philippines;
2. To observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts of justice and judicial officers;
3. To counsel or maintain such actions or
proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and
such defenses only as he believes to be honestly
debatable under the law;
4. To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the
causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek
to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law;
5. To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at
every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of
his client, and to accept no compensation in
connection with his client’s business except from
him or with his knowledge and approval;
6. To abstain from all offensive personality and to
advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness, unless required
by the justice of the cause with which he is
charge;
7. Not to encourage either the commencement or
the continuance of an action or proceeding, or
delay any man’s cause, from any corrupt motive
or interest;
8. Never to reject, for any consideration personal to
himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed;
9. In the defense of a person accused of crime, by
all fair and honorable means, regardless of his
personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to
present every defense that the law permits, to the
end that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law.
Page 11 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
1. To Society (Canons 1-6)
a. Respect for Law and Legal
Processes
CANON 1. A lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal process.
Note: Canon 1 is the 4th top source of Questions on
the CPR. It was asked 21 times in the last 25 years as
of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)].
Freedom of speech and of expression, like all
constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that
freedom of expression needs on occasion to be
adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements
of equally important public interests. One of these
fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the
integrity and orderly functioning of the administration
of justice [Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. No. Nos. 79690-
707 and 80578 (1988)].
The responsibility of a ‘public’ lawyer (such as Special
Prosecutor), who owes duties of fidelity and respect
to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the
embodiment and the repository of the judicial power
in the government of the Republic, to uphold the
dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not
to promote distrust in the administration of justice is
heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer
[Zaldivar v. Gonzales, supra].
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
An unlawful conduct is act or omission which is
against the law. It is a transgression of any provision
of law, which need not be penal. [Re: Report on the
Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Atty.
Kho A.M, P-06-2177 (2007)]
Dishonesty involves lying or cheating. It is a
disposition to cheat, deceive, defraud. [Agpalo (2004)]
Grossly Immoral
Immoral Conduct
Conduct
Acts that are willful, When it is so corrupt as
flagrant, or shameless, to constitute a criminal
and that show a moral act, or so unprincipled
indifference to the as to be reprehensible
opinion of the upright to a high degree, or
and respectable when committed under
such scandalous or
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Immoral Conduct
Grossly Immoral
Conduct
members of the revolting circumstances
community as to shock the
community’s sense of
decency
Penalty of disbarment
[Perez v. Catindig, A.C. No. No. 5816 (2015)]
Moral Character is the objective reality of what a
person really is, while good reputation is the opinion
of the public generally entertained of a person or the
estimate in which he is held by the public where he is
known [Royong v. Oblena, A.C. No. 376 (1963)]
Immoral conduct has been defined as that
conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless,
and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members of
the community. For such conduct to warrant
disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly
immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree. [Ui v. Bonifacio, A.M.
No. 3319 (2000)].
Examples of Grossly Immoral Acts
• Wanton disregard for the sanctity of marriage as
shown when the lawyer pursued a married
woman and thereafter cohabited with her
[Guevarra v. Eala, A.C. No. No. 7136 (2007)]
• Rape of a neighbor’s wife, which constitutes
serious moral depravity, even if his guilt was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal
prosecution for rape [Calub v. Suller, A.C. No. No.
1474 (2000)]
• Obtaining money from a client, without
rendering proper legal services, and appropriating
the proceeds of the insurance policies of the
client’s deceased husband [Freeman v. Zenaida,
A.C. No. 6246 (2011)]
• Falsifying documents [Cobalt Resources, Inc. v.
Aguardo, A.C. No. 10781, (2016)]
• The issuance of checks without sufficient funds
to cover the same. [Aca v. Salvado, A.C. No. No.
10952, (2016)]
Examples of Acts Not Considered Grossly Immoral
• Mere intimacy between a man and a woman, both
of whom possess no impediment to marry,
voluntarily carried and devoid of deceit on the
part of the respondent, even if a child was born
out of wedlock of such relationship; it may
suggest a doubtful moral character but not
grossly immoral [Figueroa v. Barranco, SBC Case
No. 519 (1997)]
Page 12 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
• Stealing a kiss from a client [Advincula v. Macabata,
A.C. No. No. 7204 (2007)]
• Making sexual advances towards a client, but
stopping right after the client refused such
advances [Roa v Moreno, A.C. No. 8382 (2010)].
• Although siring a child with a woman other than
his legitimate wife constituted immorality, he
committed the immoral conduct when he was
not yet a lawyer. The degree of his immoral
conduct was not as grave than if he had
committed the immorality when already a
member of the Philippine Bar [Advincula v.
Advincula A.C. No. 9226 (2016)].
A lawyer may not be disciplined for failure to pay her
obligation [Toledo v. Abalos, 315 SCRA 419 (1999)], but
unwarranted obstinacy in evading the payment of a
debt has been considered as a gross misconduct.
[Constantino v. Saludares, 228 SCRA 233 (1993)].
Moral turpitude includes everything which is
done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness,
or depravity in the private duties which a man owed
his fellowmen, or to society in general [Barrios v.
Martinez, A.C. No. No. 4585 (2004)].
Murder, estafa, rape, violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22 (Bouncing Checks Law), bribery, bigamy, adultery,
seduction, abduction, concubinage and smuggling,
falsification of a public document, are considered
crimes involving moral turpitude.
In order to hold the lawyer amenable to disbarment
by reason of his or her having committed a crime
involving moral turpitude, it is not enough to show
that there is a pending case involving moral turpitude
against him or her because Section 27 of Rule 138
expressly requires that he or she must have been
found by final judgment guilty of the crime involving
moral turpitude. [Interadent Zahntechnik Phil., Inc. v.
Atty. Rebecca S. Francisco-Simbillo, A.C. No. 9464,
(2016)]
A lawyer is obligated to promote respect for legal
processes. This includes order of the commission on
Bar Discipline of the IBP. [Lex Pareto, Bar 2002]
Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal profession.
The promotion of organizations, with knowledge of
their objectives, for the purpose of violating or
evading the laws constitutes to malpractice of gross
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
misconduct in his office [In re: Terrell, G.R. No. 1203
(1903)].
The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will
not denounce criticism made by anyone against the
Court for, if well-founded, can truly have constructive
effects in the task of the Court, but it will not
countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of
our people’s faith in the judicial system, let alone, by
those who have been privileged by it to practice law
in the Philippines [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
159486 (2003)].
A lawyer should advise his client to uphold the
law, not to violate or disobey it. Conversely, he
should not recommend to his client any recourse or
remedy that is contrary to law, public policy, public
order, and public morals [Coronel v. Cunanan, A.C. No.
6738 (2015)].
Rule 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or delay any
man’s cause.
Barratry or “Maintenance”: the offense of inciting
or stirring up quarrels, litigation or groundless
lawsuits, either at law or otherwise [Bouvier]
Ambulance-chasing
Unethical practice of inducing personal injury victims
to bring suits. The practice of lawyers in frequenting
hospitals and homes of the injured to convince them
to go to court [Lex Pareto (2014)]
Accident-site solicitation of any kind of legal business
by laymen employed by an attorney for the purpose
or by the attorney himself.
Supports perjury, the defrauding of innocent persons
by judgments, upon manufactured causes of actions
and the defrauding of injured persons having proper
causes of action but ignorant of legal rights and court
procedure.
A lawyer’s conduct of vindictiveness is a decidedly
undesirable trait especially when one resorts to using
the court not to secure justice but merely to exact
revenge warrants his dismissal from the judiciary.
[Saburnido v. Madrono, A.C. No. No. 4497 (2001)]
Ambulance Chasing Barratry
Refers to personal Refers to any action
injury
Refers to cases brought Refers to suits before
before judicial bodies judicial or non-judicial
bodies
Page 13 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Other prohibited acts include:
• Volunteering advice to bring lawsuits, except
where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it
a duty to do so
• Hunting up defects in titles or other causes of
action in order to be employed to bring suit or
breed litigation [Agpalo (2004)]
Rule 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his clients to
avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of
a fair settlement.
The function of a lawyer is not only to conduct
litigation but to avoid it where possible, by advising
settlement or withholding suit. He must act as
mediator for compromise rather than an instigator of
controversy and a predator of conflict [Agpalo
(2004)].
It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client,
ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of
the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he
finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his
bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and
submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A
lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his
client, and temper his client’s propensity to litigate. A
lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is
superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is
indisputable [Castañeda v. Ago, G.R. No. L-28546
(1975)]
b. Efficient and Convenient Legal
Services
CANON 2. A lawyer shall make his legal services
available in an efficient and convenient manner
compatible with the independence, integrity and
effectiveness of the profession.
Note: asked 5 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex
Pareto (2017)]
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty. [Sec. 11, Art. III, 1987
Constitution]
A person in need of legal services should be able to
find a lawyer who is qualified to provide them. It is
the responsibility of the bar to make such services
available [Agpalo (2004)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Rule 2.01. A lawyer shall not reject, except for
valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the
oppressed.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. It could be that for some lawyers,
especially the neophytes in the profession, being
appointed counsel de officio is an irksome chore. For
those holding such belief, it may come as a surprise
that counsel of repute and of eminence welcome such
an opportunity. It makes even more manifest that law
is indeed a profession dedicated to the ideal of service
and not a mere trade. It is understandable then why a
high degree of fidelity to duty is required of one so
designated. [Ledesma v. Climaco, G.R. No. L-23815
(1974)]
Legal aid is not a matter of charity. It is a means for
the correction of social imbalance that may and often
do lead to injustice, for which reason it is a public
responsibility of the bar [Sec. 1, Art. 1, IBP
Handbook, Guidelines Governing the Establishment
and Operation of the Legal Aid Office].
See also Canon 14 below.
Rule 2.02. In such cases, even if the lawyer does
not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal
advice to the person concerned if only to the
extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s rights.
Although no lawyer-client relationship is created
when a lawyer categorically refuses to accept a case, a
lawyer is still bound to give legal advice to the
defenseless and oppressed to protect their rights.
Advice may be on what preliminary steps to take until
the client has secured the services of counsel. But he
shall refrain from giving legal advice if the reason for
not accepting the case is that there involves a conflict
of interest between him and a prospective client or
between a present client and a prospective client.
[Agpalo (2004)]
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed to primarily solicit legal
business.
A well-known lawyer has been engaged to run a
program in which he encourages indigent party
litigants to consult him free of charge about their legal
problems over a radio and television network. Has he
violated any ethical rules? – YES, as it involves
indirect advertising and solicitation and is likewise
violative of the confidentiality of lawyer-client
relationship. His act may also be considered as a form
Page 14 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
of self-praise hence subject to discipline [In re: Tagorda,
G.R. No. 32329, (1929), cited in Lex Pareto (2014);
Linsangan v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672 (2009)].
Law is not a business but a profession. Unlike a
businessman, the lawyer has:
1. Relation to the administration of justice involving
sincerity, integrity and reliability as an officer of
the court
2. Duty of public service;
3. Relation to clients with the highest degree of
fiduciary; and
4. Relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by
candor, fairness and unwillingness to resort to
business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice, or dealing
directly with their clients [Agpalo (2004)]
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice [Sec. 27, Rule 138,
RoC].
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 inconsistency 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 [Villatuya v. Tabalingcos, A.C. No. 6622
(2012)].
The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome
of character and conduct. Good and efficient service
to a client as well as to the community has a way of
publicizing itself and catching public attention. That
publicity is a normal by-product of effective service
which is right and proper. A good and reputable
lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and
to magnify his success [Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc.,
B.M. No. 553 (1993)].
Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates lower
than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant.
Ratio: The practice of law is profession and not a
trade. It is improper to lower your legal rates just
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
because another lawyer has offered a lower legal fee.
[Lex Pareto (2014)]
This rule prohibits the competition in the matter of
charging professional fees for the purposed of
attracting clients in favor of the lawyer who offers
lower rates. The rule does not prohibit a lawyer from
charging a reduced fee or none at all to an indigent or
to a person who would have difficulty paying the fee
usually charged for such services [Agpalo (2004)].
c. True, Honest, Fair, Dignified
and Objective Information on
Legal Services
CANON 3. A lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective information or statement of facts.
Note: Canon 3 is 5th top source of Questions on CPR;
it was asked 16 times in the last 25 years as of 2017
[Lex Pareto (2017)].
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.
Allowable advertisement
1. Ordinary simple professional card;
2. Publication in reputable law list with brief
biographical and other informative data which
may include:
a. Name;
b. Associates;
c. Address;
d. Phone numbers;
e. Branches of law practiced;
f. Birthday;
g. Day admitted to the bar;
h. Schools and dates attended;
i. Degrees and distinctions;
j. Public or quasi-public offices;
k. Posts of honor;
l. Legal authorships;
m. Teaching positions;
n. Associations;
o. Legal fraternities and societies;
p. References and regularly represented clients
must be published for that purpose [Ulep v.
The Legal Clinic, Inc., supra].
3. Publication of simple announcement of opening
of law firm, change of firm;
4. Listing in telephone directory but not under
designation of special branch of law;
Page 15 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
5. If acting as an associate (specializing in a branch
of law), may publish a brief and dignified
announcement to lawyers (law list, law journal);
6. If in media, those acts incidental to his practice
and not of his own initiative;
7. Writing legal articles;
8. Activity of an association for the purpose of legal
representation.
The law list must be a reputable law list published
primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade
journal or periodical which is published primarily for
other purposes.
Prohibited Advertisements [Sec. 27, Canon of
Professional Ethics (hereinafter, CPE)]
1. Through touters of any kind whether allied real
estate firms or trust companies advertising to
secure the drawing of deeds or wills;
2. Offering retainers in exchange for executorships
or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer;
3. Furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments
concerning the manner of their conduct, the
magnitude of the interests involved, the
importance of lawyer’s position, and all other like
self-laudation.
A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of
his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in
a manner similar to a merchant advertising his
goods. Further, the advertisements of “The Legal
Clinic” seem to promote divorce, secret marriage,
bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law
which their experts can facilitate, that are highly
reprehensible [Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, supra].
A lawyer may not properly publish his brief
biographical and informative data in a daily paper,
magazine, trade journal or society program in order to
solicit legal business. A paid advertisement in the
newspaper which reads, “Annulment of Marriage
Specialist” is also prohibited [Khan v. Simbillo, A.C.
No. 5299 (2003)].
The use of a card containing “As a notary public, he
can execute for you a deed of sale, can renew lost
documents and can make your application for
homestead and execute any kind of affidavit. As a
lawyer, he can help you collect your loans as well as
any complaint for or against you.” is a form of
prohibited advertisement. [In re: Tagorda, supra].
In the last analysis, where to draw the line is a question
of good faith and good taste.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Entering into other businesses
If entering into other businesses which are not
inconsistent with the lawyer’s profession, it is
advisable that they be entirely separate and apart such
that a layman could distinguish between the two
functions.
The lawyer must make it clear to his client whether he
is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
Rule 3.02. In the choice of a firm name, no false,
misleading or assumed name shall be used. The
continued use of the name of a deceased partner is
permissible provided that the firm indicates in all
its communications that said partner is deceased.
The continued use of the name of a deceased partner
is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its
communications that said partner is deceased [Agpalo
(2004)].
Ratio: All partners by their joint efforts over a period
of years contributed to the goodwill attached to the
firm name, and the removal of the deceased partner’s
name disturbs the client goodwill built through the
years.
Firms may not use misleading names showing
association with other firms to purport legal services
of highest quality and ties with multinational business
enterprise especially when such firm attached as an
associate cannot legally practice law in the Philippines
[Dacanay v. Baker and McKenzie, A.C. No. 2131 (1985)].
Rule 3.03. Where a partner accepts public office,
he shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall
be dropped from the firm name unless the law
allows him to practice law concurrently.
Purpose: To prevent the law firm from using his name
to attract legal business and to avoid suspicion of
undue influence.
A civil service officer or employee whose duty or
responsibility does not require his entire time to be at
the disposal of the government may not engage in the
private practice of law without the written permit
from the head of the department concerned [Agpalo
(2004)].
It is unlawful for a public official or employee to,
among others, engage in the private practice of their
profession, unless authorized by the Constitution or
law, provided that such practice will not conflict or
tend to conflict with official functions. The inclusion
Page 16 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
or retention of the public official’s name in the
professional card constitutes as an unlawful
continuance of engagement in private practice.
[Samonte v. Gatdula, A.M. No. P-99-1292 (1999)].
Absolute and relative prohibition of public
officials from practice of law
When any of those absolutely prohibited officials is
appointed/elected/qualified, he ceases, as a general
rule, to engage in the private practice of law and his
right to practice is suspended during his tenure in
office.
See also Public Officials and the Practice of Law
above.
Rule 3.04. A lawyer shall not pay or give anything
of value to representatives of the mass media in
anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract
legal business.
Purpose: To prevent some lawyers from gaining an
unfair advantage over others through the use of
gimmickry, press agentry or other artificial means.
This rule prohibits making indirect publicity
gimmickry, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper
comments, procuring his photograph to be published
in connection with cases which he is handling, making
a courtroom scene to attract the attention of
newspapermen, or arranging for the purpose an
interview with him by the media [Agpalo 2004].
It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a
criminal case is being investigated by the authorities,
even when it is being tried in court; but when said
publicity and sensationalism is allowed, even
encouraged, when the case is on appeal and is pending
consideration by this Tribunal, the whole thing
becomes inexcusable, even abhorrent, and this Court,
in the interest of justice, is constrained and called
upon to put an end to it and a deterrent against its
repetition by meting an appropriate disciplinary
measure, even a penalty to the one liable [Cruz v. Salva,
G.R. No. L-12871 (1959)].
d. Participation in the
Improvement of and Reforms in
the Legal System
CANON 4. A lawyer shall participate in the
development of the legal system by initiating or
supporting efforts in law reform and in the
improvement of the administration of justice.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Note: asked 2 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex
Pareto (2017)].
This is a duty that flows from the lawyer’s sense of
public responsibility [Agpalo (2004)].
Examples:
• Presenting position papers or resolutions for the
introduction of pertinent bills in Congress;
• Submitting petitions to the Supreme Court for
the of the RoC;
• Writing legal publications or books as an avenue
of improving the legal system
The Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP was
commended by the Supreme Court when it
promulgated a resolution requesting the IBP’s
National Committee on Legal Aid to ask for the
exemption from the payment of filing, docket and
other fees of clients of the legal aid offices in the
various IBP chapters [Re: Request of NCLA to Exempt
Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing, Docket and Other Fees
(2009)].
e. Participation in Legal Education
Program
CANON 5. A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal
developments, participate in continuing legal
education programs, support efforts to achieve
high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in
disseminating information regarding the law and
jurisprudence.
Purpose: The lawyer’s life is one of continuous and
laborious study; otherwise, his skill and knowledge of
law and related disciplines will lag behind and become
obscure due to obsoleteness.
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
[hereinafter, MCLE] Program
A program which requires lawyers to show proof of
having undertaken improvement in their knowledge
as a precondition for renewing their license to practice
[Lex Pareto (2014)]
See also Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
below.
There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the
trial court’s order to submit proof of his MCLE
compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities
given him. Court orders are to be respected not
because the judges who issue them should be
Page 17 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
respected, but because of the respect and
consideration that should be extended to the judicial
branch of the Government. Disrespect to judicial
incumbents is disrespect to that branch the
Government to which they belong, as well as to the
State which has instituted the judicial system
[Rodriguez-Manahan v. Flores, A.C. No. No. 8954
(2013)].
Atty. Echanez’s acts of: (a) not complying with two
MCLEs for two compliance periods; (b) repeatedly
indicating false MCLE compliance numbers in his
pleadings before the trial courts; and, (c) repeatedly
failing to obey legal orders of trial court, IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline and also the Supreme
Court despite due notice, taken together, constitute
serious cases that merits disbarment. [Mapalad vs. Atty.
Echanez; A.C. No. 10911 (2017)].
f. Applicability to Government
Lawyers
CANON 6. These canons shall apply to lawyers
in government service in the discharge of their
official duties.
Note: asked 6 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex
Pareto (2017)].
Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a
government office may not be disciplined as a
member of the Bar for misconduct in the
discharge of his duties as a government official.
However, if said misconduct as a government
official also constitutes a violation of his oath as
a lawyer, then he may be disciplined by this Court
as a member of the Bar… A member of the Bar
who assumes public office does not shed his
professional obligations. Hence, the CPR… was
not meant to govern the conduct of private
practitioners alone, but all lawyers including those in
government service. This is clear from Canon 6 of
said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants
who owe the outmost fidelity to the public service.
Thus, they should be more sensitive in the
performance of their professional obligations, as their
conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the
public. [Vitriolo v. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984 (2003)].
Lawyers in government service should be more
conscientious with their professional obligations
consistent with the time-honored principle of public
office being a public trust. The ethical standards
under the CPR are rendered even more exacting as to
government lawyers because they have the added duty
to abide by the policy of the State to promote a high
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
standard of ethics, competence, and professionalism
in public service [Liang Fuji vs. Gemma Armi M. Dela
Cruz, A.C. No. 11043 (2017)].
May a former government lawyer appear in a case
against the government? – YES, he may appear in a
case unless there is a specific ethical rule or provision
of law which prohibits him from doing so [Lex Pareto
(2014)].
When may a former government lawyer be prohibited
from accepting a legal engagement?
• 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;
• Retired members of the judiciary receiving
pensions form 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 [Lex Pareto (2014)].
Sec. 4, R.A. No. 6713 provides the norms of conduct
of public officials and employees.
Rule 6.01. The primary duty of a lawyer engaged
in public prosecution is not to convict but to see
that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing
the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer with the
two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or
innocence suffer. He should not hesitate to
recommend to the court the acquittal of an accused if
the evidence in his possession shows that the accused
is innocent [Agpalo (2004)].
In criminal cases, a public prosecutor should be
present for the following reasons:
1. To protect the interest of the State (As the
criminal case is in reality a crime against the
State);
2. To see to it that justice is done (Rule 6.01)
Naturally, the private prosecutor is interested only to
convict the accused. However, the primary duty of the
public prosecutor is not to convict, but to see that
justice is done [Lex Pareto (2014)].
A prosecuting attorney, by the nature of his
office, is under no compulsion to file a particular
criminal information where he is not convinced
that he has evidence to prop up the averments
Page 18 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a
different conclusion. This is not to discount the
possibility of the commission of abuses on the part of
the prosecutor. But we must have to recognize that a
prosecuting attorney should not be unduly compelled
to work against his conviction. In case of doubt, we
should give him the benefit thereof. A contrary rule
may result in our courts being unnecessarily swamped
with unmeritorious cases. Worse still, a criminal
suspect's right to due process - the sporting idea of
fair play - may be transgressed. So it is, that in People
vs. Sope, this Court made the pronouncement that "[i]t
is very logical that the prosecuting attorney, being the
one charged with the prosecution of offenses, should
determine the information to be filed and cannot be
controlled by the offended party." [People v. Pineda,
G.R. No. L-26222 (1967)]
Rule 6.02. A lawyer in the government service
shall not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.
A lawyer should not use his position to feather his
private law practice and accept any private legal
business that may conflict with his official duties. In
case of conflict, he should terminate his professional
relationship, and his official duties must prevail
[Agpalo (2004)].
Government employees are expected to devote
themselves completely to public service. For this
reason, the private practice of profession is
prohibited. Lawyers in government service cannot
handle private cases for they are expected to devote
themselves full-time to the work of their respective
offices [Ramos v. Imbang, A.C. No. 6788 (2007)].
Rule 6.03. A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service.
How government lawyers may leave government
service:
1. Retirement;
2. Resignation;
3. Expiration of the term of office;
4. Abandonment;
5. Dismissal
General rule: Practice of profession is allowed
immediately after leaving public service.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Exceptions: The lawyer cannot practice as to matters
with which he had connection during his term. This
prohibition lasts:
• For one year, if he had not intervened;
• Permanently, if he had intervened.
The “matter” contemplated are those that are
adverse-interest conflicts (substantial relatedness and
adversity between the government matter and the
new client’s matter in interest) and congruent-interest
representation conflicts (prohibits lawyers from
representing a private practice client even if the
interests of the former government client and the new
client are entirely parallel). “Intervention” should be
significant and substantial which can or have affected
the interest of others (i.e. an act of a person has the
power to influence the subject proceedings) [PCGG v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. Nos. 151809-12 (2005)].
Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 6713 generally provides for the
prohibited acts and transactions of public officials and
employees. Sec. 7(b)(2) prohibits them from engaging
in the private practice of their profession during their
incumbency. As an exception, a public official or
employee can engage in the practice of his or her
profession under the following conditions: first, the
private practice is authorized by the Constitution or
by the law; and second, the practice will not conflict, or
tend to conflict, with his or her official functions. The
prohibitions continue to apply for a period of one
year after the public official or employee’s resignation,
retirement, or separation from public office, except
for the private practice of profession under
subsection (b)(2), which can already be undertaken
even within the one-year prohibition period. As an
exception to this exception, the one-year prohibited
period applies with respect to any matter before the
office the public officer or employee used to work
with. [Query of Karen Silverio-Buffe, A.M. No. 08-6-352-
RTC (2009)].
Sec. 3(d) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) also considers it an unlawful and
corrupt practice for a public official to accept or have
any member of his family accept employment in a
private enterprise which has pending official business
with him during the pendency of his office or within
one year after its termination.
In the case of Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc. v.
Paz, a former Legal Officer and Legal Prosecutor of
PARGO who participated in the investigation of the
Anti-Graft case against Mayor Pablo Cuneta later on
acted as counsel for the said Mayor in the same anti-
graft case. The Court found the said counsel guilty of
representing clients with conflicting interest and
Page 19 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
suspended him from the practice of law for 2 months
[A.M. No. 1008 (1980)].
2. To the Legal Profession
a. Canons 7 to 9
1. Upholding the Dignity and Integrity of
the Profession
CANON 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Note: asked 10 times in the last 25 years as of 2017
[Lex Pareto (2017)].
The bar has to maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency, honesty, and fair dealing to be an
effective instrument in the proper administration of
justice. In order to do so, it is necessary that every
lawyer should strive to uphold the honor and dignity
of the legal profession and to improve not only the
law, but the administration of justice as well [Agpalo
(2004)]
A lawyer should actively support the activities of the
IBP and not limit himself to paying dues [Agpalo
(2004)].
Rule 7.01. A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or suppressing
a material fact in connection with his application
for admission to the bar.
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. While a lawyer
has the solemn duty to defend his client’s rights
and is expected to display the utmost zeal in
defense of his client’s cause, his conduct must
never be at the expense of truth [Young v. Batuegas,
A.C. No. 5379 (2003)].
A student aspiring to be a lawyer must study and
observe the duties and responsibilities of a lawyer. He
cannot claim that the CPR does not apply to him
[Agpalo (2004)].
Penalties for knowing suppression or false
representation of a material fact in the application for
admission to the bar:
1. Disqualification of the applicant from taking the
bar, if the concealment is discovered before he
takes the bar examinations;
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
2. Prohibition from taking the lawyer’s oath, if the
concealment is discovered after the candidate has
taken the bar examinations;
3. Revocation of license to practice, if the
concealment was discovered after he has taken
his lawyer’s oath [In re: Petition to Take the Lawyer’s
Oath, Caesar Z. Distrito, petitioner, B.M. No. 1209
(2003)].
If what the applicant concealed is a crime which does
not involve moral turpitude, it is the fact of
concealment and not the commission of the crime
itself that makes him morally unfit to become a
lawyer. It should be noted that the application was
made under oath, which he lightly took when he made
the concealment [In re: Petition to Take the Lawyer’s Oath,
Caesar Z. Distrito, petitioner, supra].
Rule 7.02. A lawyer shall not support the
application for admission to the bar of any person
known by him to be unqualified in respect to
character, education, or other relevant attribute.
A lawyer should volunteer information or cooperate
in any investigation concerning alleged anomaly in the
bar examination so that those candidates who failed
therein can be ferreted out and those lawyers
responsible therefor can be disbarred [In re: Parazo,
G.R. No. 82027 (1948)].
A lawyer should not readily execute an affidavit of
good moral character in favor of an applicant who has
not lived up to the standard set by law [Agpalo
(2004)].
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.
Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be
eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of
a member of the bar. Every lawyer should act and
comport himself in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity of the legal
profession [Catu v. Rellosa, supra.].
There is no distinction as to whether the
transgression is committed in the lawyer’s
professional capacity or in his private life or in his
private transaction because a lawyer may not divide
his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and
a mere citizen at another. The moral turpitude for
which an attorney may be disbarred may consist of
misconduct in either his professional or non-
Page 20 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
professional activities, in his professional and private
capacity. [Royong v. Oblena, A.C. No. No 376 (1963); In
Re: Pelaez, (1923)].
Respondent’s act of allowing the use of a forged
signature on a petition she prepared and notarized
demonstrates a lack of moral fiber on her part.
[Velasco-Tamaray v. Daquis, A.M. No. 10868, (2016)].
Keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage
while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning
and mistreating complainant and their children, show
his disregard of family obligations, morality and
decency, the law and the lawyers’ oath. Such gross
misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows
a serious flaw in respondent’s character, his moral
indifference to scandal in the community, and his
outright defiance of established norms. All these
could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and
place the integrity of the administration of justice in
peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate
disciplinary action [Tapucar v. Tapucar, A.C. No. 4148,
(1998)].
Considering the length of time the affair lasted, it
cannot be a mere moment of indiscretion. Florendo
had an illicit relationship with a married woman who
was not his wife but that of his client. This shows his
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and
his own marital vow for fidelity. He also violated the
trust and confidence Tiong reposed on him. [Tiong v.
Florendo, A.C 4428, (2011)]
Whether a lawyer’s sexual congress with a woman not
his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be
characterized as grossly immoral conduct depends on
the surrounding circumstances. The case at bar
involves a relationship between a married lawyer and
a married woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial
whether the affair was carried out discreetly [Guevarra
v. Eala, A.C. No. 7136 (2007)].
See also Rule 1.01 above.
2. Courtesy, Fairness and Candor toward
Professional Colleagues
CANON 8. A lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
Note: asked 9 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex
Pareto (2017)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Lawyer don’ts:
1. Take advantage of the excusable unpreparedness
or absence of counsel during the trial of a case;
2. Make use, to his or to his client’s benefit, the
secrets of the adverse party acquired through
design or inadvertence;
3. Criticize or impute ill motive to the lawyer who
accepts what in his opinion is a weak case;
4. Proceed to negotiate with the client of another
lawyer to waive all kinds of claim when the latter
is still handling the civil case [Camacho v.
Pangulayan, A.C. No. 4807 (2000)].
5. Steal another lawyer’s client;
6. Induce a client to retain him by promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his
services;
7. Disparage another lawyer, make comparisons or
publicize his talent as a means to further his law
practice;
8. In the absence of the adverse party’s counsel,
interview the adverse party and question him as
to the facts of the case even if the adverse party
was willing;
9. Sanction the attempt of his client to settle a
litigated matter with the adverse party without the
consent nor knowledge of the latter’s counsel.
Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and
other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility.
Any undue ill feeling between clients should not
influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor
toward each other. Mutual bickering, unjustified
recriminations and offensive behavior among lawyers
not only detract from the dignity of the legal
profession, but also constitute highly unprofessional
conduct subject to disciplinary action [Reyes v. Chiong,
A.C. No. 5148 (2003)].
Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language, which is abusive, offensive
or otherwise improper.
A lawyer’s language should be forceful but
dignified, emphatic but respectful, as befitting an
advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the
legal profession [Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v.
Cloribel, G.R. No. L-27072, (1970)].
The lawyer’s arguments, whether written or oral
should be gracious to both the court and opposing
counsel, and should be of such words as may be
properly addressed by one gentleman to another
[National Security Co. v. Jarvis, 278 US 610 (1928) as
cited in Agpalo (2004)].
Page 21 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A lawyer should treat the opposing counsel and his
brethren in the law profession with courtesy, dignity,
and civility. They may do as adversaries do in law:
strive mightily but eat and drink as friends [Valencia v.
Cabanting, A.M. No. 1302 (1991)].
The Court recognizes the adversarial nature of our
legal system which has necessitated lawyers to use
strong language in advancement of the interest of the
clients. However, as members of a noble profession,
lawyers are always impressed with the duty to
represent their client’s cause, or as in this case, to
represent a personal matter in court, with courage and
zeal but that should not be used as a license for the
use of offensive and abusive language. In maintaining
the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, a
lawyer’s language – spoken or in his pleadings – must
be dignified. [Sanchez v. Aguilos, A.C. No. 10543
(2016)].
Examples of Improper Language
• Behaving without due regard for the trial court
and the opposing counsel and threatening the
court that he would file a petition for certiorari
[Bugaring v. Espanol, G.R. No. 133090 (2001)]
• Calling an adverse counsel as “bobo” or using the
word “ay que bobo” in reference to the manner
of offering evidence [Castillo v. Padilla, A.C. No.
2339 (1984)].
• Stating that “justice is blind and also deaf and
dumb”” [In Re: Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654
(1970)].
• Stating that the demand from a former client’s
counsel should be treated “as a mere scrap of
paper or should have been addressed by her
counsel…to the urinal project of the MMDA
where it may serve its rightful purpose” [Sanchez
v. Aguilos, supra].
• Calling complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng
Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng Payola," and "Reyna ng
Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been
bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of
bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the
name and reputation of complainant, as well as
BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal
negligence upon complainant and BMGI by
posting that complainant 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 complainant. He even threatened
complainant with conviction for criminal
negligence and estafa — which is contrary to one's
obligation "to act with justice" [Ma. Victoria G.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Roberto “Argee” Guevarra, A.C.
No. 11394, (2016)].
Lack or want of intention is no excuse for the
disrespectful language employed. Counsel cannot
escape responsibility by claiming that his words did
not mean what any reader must have understood
them as meaning [Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer, G.R.
No. L-22979 (1967)].
Exceptions
• Utterances made out of impulse in the course of
an argument may be forgiven and should not be
penalized [Cruz v. Cabrera, AC. 5737, (2004)].
• Statements made in the course of judicial
proceedings are absolutely privileged regardless
of defamatory tenor and malice, provided it is
relevant, pertinent or material to the cause of the
subject or inquiry [Tolentino v. Baylosis, G.R. No.
15742, (1961)].
Rule 8.02. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon the professional employment of
another lawyer; however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice
and assistance to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
A lawyer may:
1. Accept employment to handle a matter
previously handled by another lawyer:
a. Provided the other lawyer has been given
notice of termination of service, lest it
amounts to an improper encroachment
upon the professional employment of the
original counsel [Laput v. Remotigue, A.M. No.
219 (1962)]; or
b. In the absence of a notice of termination
from the client, provided he has obtained the
conformity of the counsel whom he would
substitute; or
c. In the absence of such conformity, a lawyer
must at least give sufficient notice to original
counsel so that original counsel has the
opportunity to protect his claim against the
client.
2. Give advice or assistance to any person who
seeks relief against an unfaithful or neglectful
lawyer;
3. Associate as a colleague in a case, provided he
communicate with the original counsel before
making an appearance as co-counsel:
a. Should the original lawyer object, he should
decline association but if the original lawyer
is relieved, he may come into the case; or
Page 22 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
b. Should it be impracticable for him, whose
judgment has been overruled by his co-
counsel to cooperate effectively, he should
ask client to relieve him.
A person without a retained lawyer is a legitimate
prospective client for any lawyer. But, as soon as he
had retained one and had not dismissed said counsel,
efforts on the part of another lawyer to take him as
client constitutes as encroachment of employment.
A lawyer is encroaching when:
• Promises better service
• Lowers attorney’s fees
• Downgrades the qualifications or services of the
first attorney
Although aware that the students were represented by
counsel, respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless,
to negotiate with them and their parents without at
the very least communicating the matter to their
lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel of
record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of
respondent, whether by design or because of
oversight, is an inexcusable violation of the canons of
professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty
owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the
demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member
of the Bar [Camacho v. Pagulayan, A.C. No. 4807
(2000)].
3. No Assistance in Unauthorized
Practice of Law
CANON 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of
law.
Note: asked 10 times in the last 25 years as of 2017
[Lex Pareto (2017)].
In Cayetano v. Monsod, the Court held that practice of
law means any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. Generally, to
practice law is to render any kind of service which
requires the use of legal knowledge or skill [Aguirre v.
Rana, supra.].
The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the
client and the bar from the incompetence or
dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not
subject to the disciplinary control of the court [Phil.
Assoc. of Free Labor Union v. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co.,
G.R. No. L-23959 (1971)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Examples of Practice of Law
• Legal advice and instructions to clients to inform
them of their rights and obligations
• Preparation for clients of documents requiring
knowledge of legal principles not possessed by
ordinary laymen
• Appearance for clients before public tribunals,
whether, administrative, quasi-judicial or
legislative agency.
Examples of Unauthorized Practice of Law
• It is the signing of the Roll of Attorneys that
finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer.
Appearing as counsel even before taking lawyer’s
oath [Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. 1036 (2003)]
• Using the title “Attorney” in his name even
though he is a Shari’a lawyer [Alawi v. Alauya,
A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P (1997)]
• Using a letterhead which listed as senior partners,
those who are only paralegals due to their
investments in the law firm. [Cambaliza v. Cristal-
Tenorio, AC 6290, (2004)]
• Holding oneself as a partner of a law firm when
the firm was actually a cooperative of non-
lawyers [Plus Builders v. Revilla, A.C. No. 7056,
(2006)]
• A lawyer who only signed the attendance record
at the PICC entrance and not the Roll of
Attorneys, after he realized his mistake of fact
and yet continued his operations. [In Re: Petition to
Sign the Roll of Attorneys Michael A. Medado, B.M.
No. 2540 (2013)]
• A corporation cannot engage in the practice of
law directly or indirectly. It may only hire in-
house lawyers to attend to its legal business. A
corporation cannot employ a lawyer to appear for
others for its benefit. A corporation cannot
perform the conditions required for membership
to the bar. In addition, the confidential and trust
relation between an attorney and his client cannot
arise if the attorney is employed by a corporation
[Agpalo (2004)].
See also Appearance of Non-Lawyers above
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.
Purpose: The practice of law is limited only to
individuals who have the necessary educational
qualifications and good moral character. Moreover,
an attorney-client relationship is a strictly personal
one. Lawyers are selected on account of their special
Page 23 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
fitness through their learning or probity for the work
at hand.
Unqualified person:
• Non-lawyers
• Lawyers who are not in good standing
• Lawyers who are not qualified
Examples of acts that may only be done by a lawyer
• The computation and determination of the
period within which to appeal an adverse
judgment [Eco v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-16731
(1960)]
• The examination of witnesses or the presentation
of evidence [Robinson v. Villafuerte, G.R. No. L-
5346 (1911)].
Examples of acts that may be delegated to non-lawyers:
• The examination of case law
• Finding and interviewing witnesses
• Examining court records
• Delivering papers and similar matters [Agpalo,
2004].
Rule 9.02. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to
divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except:

a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a
partner or associate that, upon the latter’s
death, money shall be paid over a reasonable
period of time to his estate or to persons
specified in the agreement; or
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer;
or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-
lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if
the plan is based in whole or in part, on a
profitable sharing arrangement.
Purpose: Allowing non-lawyers to get attorney’s fees
would confuse the public as to whom they should
consult. It would leave the bar in a chaotic condition
because non-lawyers are also not subject to
disciplinary action.
An agreement between a union lawyer and a layman
president of the union to divide equally the attorney’s
fees that may be awarded in a labor case violates this
rule, and is illegal and immoral [Amalgamated Laborers
Assn. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-23467 (1968)].
A donation by a lawyer to a labor union of part of his
attorney’s fees taken from the proceeds of a judgment
secured by him for the labor union is improper
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
because it amounts to a rebate or commission [Halili
v. CIR, G.R. No. L-24864 (1965)].
While non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or
any labor arbiter under Art. 222, Labor Code, they are
still not entitled to receive attorney’s fees. The
statutory rule that an attorney shall be entitled to have
and recover from his client a reasonable
compensation or remuneration for the services they
have rendered presupposes the existence of an
attorney-client relationship. Such a relationship
cannot exist when the client’s representative is a non-
lawyer [Five J Taxi v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111474 (1994)].
A contract between a lawyer and a layman granting
the latter a percentage of the fees collected from
clients secured by the layman and enjoining the lawyer
not to deal directly with said clients is null and void,
and the lawyer may be disciplined for unethical
conduct [Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. No. 1261 (1983)].
b. Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(Rule 139-A)
Bar Integration
The Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect
the integration of the Philippine Bar under such
conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the
standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the bar to
discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
[Sec. 1, R.A. No. 6397 (An Act Providing for the
Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating
Funds Therefor)].
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of
any group of which he is not already a member.
He became a member of the Bar when he passed the
Bar Examinations. All that integration actually does is
to provide an official national organization for the
well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of
which every lawyer is already a member [In the matter
of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, (1973)].
The IBP is essentially a semi-governmental entity, a
private organization endowed with certain
governmental attributes. While it is composed of
lawyers who are private individuals, the IBP exists to
perform certain vital public functions and to assist the
government particularly in the improvement of the
administration of justice, the upgrading of the
standards of the legal profession, and its proper
regulation.
The basic postulate of the IBP is that it is non-
political in character and that there shall be neither
Page 24 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of the IBP
Officers. The fundamental assumption is that the
officers would be chosen on the basis of professional
merit and willingness and ability to serve. The ardor
with which the candidates pursued the presidency of
the association detracted from the dignity of the legal
profession. The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being
bribed to vote did not uphold the honor of the
profession nor elevate it in the public’s esteem [In re:
1989 Elections of the IBP, A.M. No. 491 (1989)].
General Objectives of the IBP
1. To elevate the standards of the legal profession;
2. To improve the administration of justice;

3. To enable the bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively [Sec. 2, IBP By-
Laws].
Purposes of the IBP
1. To assist in the administration of justice;
2. To foster and maintain on the part of its
members high ideals of integrity, learning,
professional competence, public service and
conduct;
3. To safeguard the professional interest of its
members;
4. To cultivate among its members a spirit of
cordiality and brotherhood;
5. To provide a forum for the discussion of law,
jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice and
procedure, and the relations of the bar to the
bench and to the public, and publish information
relating thereto;
6. To encourage and foster legal education;
7. To promote a continuing program of legal
research in substantive and adjective law, and
make reports and recommendations thereon.
[Sec. 2, IBP By-Laws]
Membership and Dues
Sec. 9, Rule 139-A. Membership Dues. – Every
member of the IBP shall pay such annual dues as
the Board of Governors shall determine with the
approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum
equivalent to 10% of the collection from each
Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare Fund for
disabled members of the Chapter and the
compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.
Sec. 10, Rule 139-A. Effect of non-payment of
dues. – Subject to the provisions of Sec. 12 of this
Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for 6
months shall warrant suspension of membership
in the IBP, and default in such payment for 1 year
shall be a ground for the removal of the name of
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
the delinquent member from the Roll of
Attorneys.
A membership fee in the IBP is an exaction for
regulation, while the purpose of a tax is revenue. If
the Court has inherent power to regulate the bar,
it follows that as an incident to regulation, it may
impose a membership fee for that purpose. It
would not be possible to push through an Integrated
Bar program without means to defray the
concomitant expenses. The doctrine of implied
powers necessarily includes the power to impose such
an exaction [In the matter of the IBP, supra].
A lawyer can engage in the practice of law only by
paying his dues, and it does not matter if his practice
is “limited.” The exemption granted to senior citizens
in R.A. No. 7432 (Seniors Citizen Act) does not
include payment of membership or association dues
[Santos v. Llamas, A.C. No. 4749 (2000)].
In a case involving a Filipino lawyer staying abroad,
the Supreme Court said that there is nothing in the
law or rules, which allows his exemption from
payment of membership dues. At most, he could have
informed the Secretary of the IBP of his intention to
stay abroad before he left. In such case, his
membership in the IBP could have been terminated
and his obligation to pay dues discontinued [Letter of
Atty. Arevalo, B.M. No. 1370 (2005)].
3. To the Courts (Canons 10-13)
a. Candor, Fairness and Good Faith
to the Courts
CANON 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and
good faith to the court.
Note: asked 9 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex
Pareto (2017)].
A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the
court. Accordingly, should there be a conflict
between his duty to his client and that to the court, he
should resolve the conflict against the former and in
favor of the latter, his primary responsibility being to
uphold the cause of justice [Cobb Perez v. Lantin, G.R.
No. L-22320 (1968)].
Candor in all of the lawyer’s dealings is the very
essence of honorable membership in the legal
profession [Cuaresma v. Daquis, G.R. No. L-35113
(1975)].
Page 25 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Obligations to Uphold Candor
1. Not to suppress material and vital facts which
bear on the merit or lack of in the complaint or
petition;
2. To volunteer to the court any development of the
case which renders issues moot and academic;
3. To disclose to the court any adverse decision to
his position of which opposing counsel is
apparently ignorant and which the court should
consider in deciding the case;
4. Not to represent himself as a lawyer for a client,
appear in court and present pleadings, only to
claim later that he was not authorized to do so.
[Agpalo, 2004]
Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any
artifice.
A lawyer should not conceal the truth from the court,
nor mislead the court in any manner no matter how
demanding his duties to clients may be. His duties to
his client should yield to his duty to deal candidly with
the court. For no client is entitled to receive from the
lawyer any service involving dishonesty to the courts
[Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code,
hereinafter, IBP Committee].
Examples of Falsehood Committed by Lawyers
• Falsely stating in a deed of sale that property is
free from all liens and encumbrances [Sevilla v.
Zoleta, 96 Phil 979 (1955)]
• Falsifying a power of attorney to use in collecting
the money due to the principal and appropriating
the money for his own benefit [In Re: Rusiana,
A.C. No. 270 (1959)]
• Denying having received the notice to file brief
which is belied by the return card [Ragasajo v.
IAC, G.R. No. L-69129 (1987)]
• Presenting falsified documents in court which he
knows to be false [Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M. No.
1625 (1990)]
• Filing false charges or groundless suits [Retia v.
Gorduiz, A.M. No. 1388 (1980)]
• Knowingly alleging an untrue statement of fact in
a pleading [Young v. Batuegas, supra]
• Allowing the use of a forged signature on a
petition filed before a court [Velasco-Tamaray v.
Daquis, A.C. No. 10868 (2016)].
• Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be
denied by the court if it found that it had no
jurisdiction over the person of the accused,
respondents craftily concealed the truth by
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
alleging that accused had voluntarily surrendered
to a person in authority and was under detention.
[Young v. Batuegas, AC 5379, (2003)]
Canon 32, CPE provides that, “A lawyer should not
render any service or advice to any client – no matter
how powerful or important is the cause – which will
involve disloyalty to the laws of the country which he
is bound to uphold and obey.”
Rule 10.02. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote
or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the
language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly
cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative
by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that
which has not been proved.
In citing the Supreme Court’s decisions, and rulings,
it is the bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to
reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and
punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. Ever
present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly
quoted, the decisions and rulings may lose their
proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of other
courts, lawyers and the public who may thereby be
misled [Insular Life Employees Co. v. Insular Life
Association, G.R. No. L-25291 (1971)].
The legal profession demands that lawyers thoroughly
go over pleadings, motions and other documents
dictated or prepared by them, typed or transcribed by
their secretaries or clerks, before filing them with the
court. If a client is bound by the acts of his counsel,
with more reason should counsel be bound by the acts
of his secretary who merely follows his orders [Adez
Realty, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 100643 (1992)].
A mere typographical error in the citation of an
authority is not contemptuous. But when
misquotation is intended, the lawyer is subject to
disciplinary action [COMELEC v. Nonay, GR.
144412, (2003)].
Professional misconduct involving the misuse of
constitutional provisions for the purpose of insulting
Members of this Court is a serious breach of the rigid
standards that a member of good standing of the legal
profession must faithfully comply with [In Re:
Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of Acting
Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C, Office of the
Ombudsman and Re: Order of the Office of the Ombudsman
Referring the complaint of Attys. Oliver O. Lozano and
Evangeline J. Lozano-Endriano Against Chief Justice
Reynato S. Puno [ret.]. A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC & 10-9-9-
SC (2012)].
Page 26 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
There is a difference between the academic and
judicial standards of writing. While the academic
publishing model is based on the originality of the
writer’s thesis, the judicial system is based on the
doctrine of stare decisis, which encourages courts to
cite historical legal data, precedents, and related
studies in their decisions. The judge is not expected to
produce original scholarship in every respect. The
strength of a decision lies in the soundness and
general acceptance of the precedents and long held
legal opinions it draws from. Justice, not originality,
form and style, is the object of every decision of a
court of law. The reason for individual judges not to
use original or unique language when reinstating the
laws involved in the cases they decide is that it is their
duty to apply the laws as these are written.
A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or
appellate, is exempted from a charge of plagiarism
even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review
article, novel thoughts published in a legal periodical
or language from a party’s brief are used without
giving attribution. Thus, judges are free to use
whatever sources they deem appropriate to resolve
the matter before them, without fear of reprisal. The
same rule of exemption from the charge of plagiarism
should apply as well to practicing lawyers. They
should not be exposed to charges of plagiarism in
what they write so long as they do not depart, as
officers of the court, from the objective of assisting
the Court in the administration of justice. [In the Matter
of Charges of Plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, AM. 10-
7-17-SC, (2011)].
Judges need to answer only to two standards –
diligence and honesty. By honesty here is meant that
good faith attempt to attribute to the author his
original words and analysis. Even if a judge has to rely
in large part on the drafts of his legal researchers, the
work of a diligent and honest judge will never display
the severe plagiarism evident in the Vinuya Decision
published under the name of Justice del Castillo.
Analysis shows objective plagiarism viewed through
three lenses: 1) extent of unattributed copying belying
inadvertence, 2) deliberateness shown by systematic
commission of plagiarism, and 3) effect [Dissenting
Opinion of Justice Sereno in In the Matter of Charges of
Plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, AM. 10-7-17-SC,
(2011)].
Rule 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the
court’s processes. Those who file multiple or
repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary
action for incompetence or willful violation of their
duties as attorneys to act with good fidelity to the
courts, and to maintain only such actions that appear
to be just and consistent with truth and honor [Olivares
v. Villalon, A.C. No. 6323 (2007)].
A lawyer should not abuse his right of recourse to the
courts for the purpose of arguing a cause that had
been repeatedly rebuffed [Garcia v. Francisco, A.C. No.
3923 (1993)].
It is the duty of an attorney to employ, for the
purpose of maintaining the causes confided to
him, such means only as are consistent with truth
and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or
any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of
fact or law [Sec. 20 (d), Rule 138, RoC].
b. Respect for Courts and Judicial
Officers
CANON 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain
the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Note: asked 6 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex
Pareto (2017)].
Observing respect due to the courts means that a
lawyer should conduct himself toward judges:
1. With the courtesy everyone is entitled to expect
[Paragas v Cruz, G.R. No. L-24438 (1965)]
2. With the propriety and dignity required by the
courts [Salcedo v Hernandez, G.R. No. L-42992
(1935)].
Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity
and authority of the Court, to which they owe
their fidelities, and to promote the administration
of justice. Respect to the courts guarantees the
stability of other institutions [In re: Sotto, 82 Phil 595
(1949)].
If a pleading containing derogatory, offensive and
malicious statements is submitted in the same court
or judge in which the proceedings are pending, it is
direct contempt, equivalent to a misbehavior
committed in the presence of or so near a court or
judge as to interrupt the administration of justice.
Direct contempt is punishable summarily [In re: Letter
of Atty. Sorreda, A.M. No. 5-3-04 (2006)].
Page 27 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
Liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and
questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of
the members of the Court result in the obstruction
and perversion of the dispensation of justice [Estrada
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560 (2000)].
Even as lawyers passionately and vigorously
propound their points of view, they are bound by
certain rules of conduct for the legal profession. This
Court is certainly not claiming that it should be
shielded from criticism. All the Court demands are the
same respect and courtesy that one lawyer owes to
another under established ethical standards. There is
no exemption from this sworn duty for law
professors, regardless of their status in the academic
community or the law school to which they belong
[Re: Letter of the UP Faculty, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC
(2011)].
In Bueno v. Raneses, A.M. No. 8383 (2012) the lawyer
was disbarred because “he maligned the judge and the
Judiciary by giving the impression that court cases are
won, not on the merits, but through deceitful means
– a decidedly black mark against the Judiciary.”
Lawyers should not perform acts that would tend to
undermine and/or denigrate the integrity of the
courts, such as the subject checkbook entry which
contumaciously imputed corruption against the
Sandiganbayan. 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 judicial institution;
without this guarantee, the institution would be
resting on very shaky foundations. [PHILCOMPSAT
Holdings Corporation v. Lokin, Jr. A.C. No. 11139
(2016)].
Rule 11.01. A lawyer shall appear in court properly
attired.
Respect begins with the lawyer’s outward physical
appearance in court. Sloppy or informal attire
adversely reflects on the lawyer and demeans the
dignity and solemnity of court proceedings.
A lawyer who dresses improperly may be cited with
contempt [Agpalo (2004)].
Courts have ordered a male attorney to wear a necktie
and have prohibited a female attorney from wearing a
hat. However, the permission of a dress with a
hemline five inches above the knee was held to be
acceptable as such “had become an accepted mode of
dress even in places of worship” [“Reviewer on Legal
and Judicial Ethics” by Aguirre (2006)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Rule 11.02. A lawyer shall punctually appear at
court hearings.
Inexcusable absence from, or repeated tardiness in,
attending a pre-trial or hearing may subject the lawyer
to disciplinary action as his actions show disrespect to
the court and are therefore considered contemptuous
behavior [Agpalo (2004)].
Non-appearance at hearings on the ground that the
issue to be heard has become moot and academic is a
lapse in judicial propriety [De Gracia v. Warden of
Makati, G.R. No. L-42032 (1976)].
Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the courts.
Every citizen has the right to comment upon and
criticize the actuations of public officers. This right is
not diminished by the fact that the criticism is aimed
at a judicial authority, or that it is articulated by a
lawyer. Such right is especially recognized where the
criticism concerns a concluded litigation, because
then the court's actuations are thrown open to public
consumption. Well-recognized therefore is the
right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court
and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful
terms and through legitimate channels the acts of
courts and judges. But it is the cardinal condition
of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and
shall not spill over the walls of decency and
propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a
gross violation of the duty of respect to courts [In
Re: Almacen, supra].
The court does not close itself to comments and
criticisms so long as they are fair and dignified. Going
beyond the limits of fair comments by using insulting,
disparaging, and intemperate language necessitates
and warrants a rebuke from the court. While it is
expected of lawyers to advocate their client’s cause,
they are not at liberty to resort to arrogance,
intimidation and innuendo [Sangalang v. IAC, G.R.
No. 71169 (1988)].
It is human nature that there be bitter feelings which
often reach to the judge as the source of the supposed
wrong. A judge, therefore, ought to be patient, and
tolerate everything which appears as but a momentary
outbreak of disappointment. Lawyers may not be held
to too strict an account for words said in the heat of
the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and
that the big way is for the court to condone even
contemptuous language. While judges must exercise
Page 28 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
patience, lawyers must also observe temperate
language as well [Soriano v. CA, G.R. No. 100633 and
101550 (2001)].
Cf. Rule 8.01 above.
Rule 11.04. A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
Post-litigation utterances or publications, made by
lawyers, critical of the courts and their judicial
actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not,
which transcend the permissible bounds of fair
comment and legitimate criticism and thereby tend to
bring them into disrepute or to subvert public
confidence in their integrity and in the orderly
administration of justice, constitute grave
professional misconduct which may be visited with
disbarment or other lesser appropriate disciplinary
sanctions by the Supreme Court in the exercise of the
prerogatives inherent in it as the duly constituted
guardian of the morals and ethics of the legal
fraternity [In Re: Almacen, supra.].
Counsels must be courageous enough to point out
errors, arbitrariness and injustices of courts and
judges. The rule allows criticism so long as it is
supported by the record or it is material to the case
[Agpalo (2004)].
Any serious accusation against a judicial officer that is
utterly baseless, unsubstantiated and unjustified shall
not be countenanced [Go v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 152672
(2007)].
Academic freedom cannot be invoked. The
constitutional right to freedom of expression of
members of the bar may be circumscribed by their
ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the
courts and to uphold the public’s faith in the legal
profession and the justice system [Re: Letter of UP Law
Faculty, supra.].
Rule 11.05. A lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
The duty to respect does not preclude a lawyer
from filing administrative complaints against
erring judges.
The lawyer shall not file an administrative case until
he has exhausted judicial remedies which result in a
finding that the judge has gravely erred [Agpalo
(2004)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

The Supreme Court through Consequences of Non-Preparation

the Office of the Court 1. The postponement of the pre-trial or hearing,
Administrator pursuant to the which would thus entail delay in the early
Purely Court’s administrative power disposition of the case;
Administrative over all courts and personnel 2. The judge may consider the client non-suited or
Complaint thereof. in default;
[Sec. 6, Art. VIII, Constitution; 3. The judge may consider the case deemed
Maceda v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. submitted for decision without client’s evidence,
102781 (1993)] to his prejudice [Agpalo (2004)].
Criminal Office of the Ombudsman
House of Representatves and Half of the work of the lawyer is done in the office. It
Impeachable the Senate is spent in the study and research. Inadequate
Offenses [Sec 2-8. Article XI, preparation obstructs the administration of justice
Constitution] [Martin’s Legal Ethics (1988)].

c. Assistance in the Speedy and
Efficient Administration of
Justice
Canon 12. A lawyer shall exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.
Note: asked 11 times in the last 25 years as of 2017
[Lex Pareto (2017)].
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition
of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies [Sec. 16, Art. III, 1987
Constitution].
It is the duty of an attorney not to encourage either
the commencement or the continuance of an action
or proceeding or delay any man’s cause from any
corrupt motive or interest. [Sec. 20(g), Rule 138,
RoC].
The filing of another action containing the same
subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res
judicata, runs contrary to this canon [Siy Lim v.
Montano, A.C. No. 5653 (2006)].
Rule 12.01. A lawyer shall not appear for trial
unless he has adequately prepared himself on the
law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will
adduce and the order of its preference. He should
also be ready with the original documents for
comparison with the copies.
This could be read in conjunction with Rule 18.02.
Without adequate preparation, the lawyer may not be
able to effectively assist the court in the efficient
administration of justice.
A newly hired counsel who appears in a case in the
midstream is presumed and obliged to acquaint
himself with all the antecedent processes and
proceedings that have transpired in the record prior
to his takeover [Villasis v. CA, G.R. No. L-34369
(1974)].
Examples of acts which amount to obstruction in the
administration of justice
• Inadequate preparation;
• Instructing complaining witness in a criminal
action not to appear at the schedule hearing so
that the case against the client would be
dismissed;
• Asking a client to plead guilty to a crime which
the lawyer knows his client did not commit;
• Advising a client who is detained for crime to
escape from prison;
• Employing dilatory tactics to frustrate
satisfaction of clearly valid claims;
• Prosecuting clearly frivolous cases or appeals to
drain the resources of the other party and compel
him to submit out of exhaustion;
• Filing multiple petitions or complaints for a cause
that has been previously rejected in the false
expectation of getting favorable action;
• Other acts of similar nature [“Legal and Judicial
Ethics” by Funa (2009)].
Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple actions
arising from the same cause.
Purpose: There is an affirmative duty of a lawyer to
check against useless litigations. His signature in every
pleading constitutes a certificate by him that to the
best of his knowledge there is a good ground to
support it and that it is not to interpose for delay. The
willful violation of this rule may subject him to

Page 29 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
appropriate disciplinary action or render him liable for
the costs of litigation [Agpalo (2004)].
This Rule prohibits against forum shopping.
Forum Shopping
1. When, as a result or in anticipation of an adverse
decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable
opinion in another forum through means other
than appeal or certiorari by raising identical
causes of action, subject matter, and issues.
2. The institution of involving the same parties for
the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, on the supposition that one or the
other court would come out with a favorable
disposition [Araneta v. Araneta, G.R. No. 190814
(2013)].
3. An indicium of the presence of or the test for
determining whether a litigant violated the rule
against forum shopping is where the elements of
litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment
in one case will amount to res judicata in the other
case.
Requisites of litis pendentia
1. Identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions;
2. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for,
the relief being founded on the same 
facts; and
3. Identity of the two preceding particulars is such
that any judgment rendered in the pending case,
regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata in the other [HSBC v.
Catalan, G.R. No. 159590 (2004)].
Requisites of res judicata
1. There be a decision on the merits;
2. It be decided by a court of competent
jurisdiction;
3. The decision is final; and
4. The two actions involved identical parties,
subject matter, and causes of action.
Sec. 5, Rule 7, RoC requires that a certificate against
forum shopping be executed that:
1. Plaintiff or principal party has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending therein; if there is such other pending
action or claim, a complete statement of the
present status thereof;
2. If he should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five days
Page 30 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
there from to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements
shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall cause
for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless
otherwise provided, upon motion after hearing.
Submission of a false certification or non-compliance
with any of the undertakings in a certification of non-
forum shopping shall constitute indirect contempt of
court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions.
If acts of the party or his counsel constitute willful
and deliberate forum shopping:
1. Be a ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice;
2. Constitute direct contempt;
3. Be a cause for administrative sanctions.
The rule against forum shopping and the requirement
that a certification to that effect be complied with in
the filing of complaints, petitions or other initiatory
pleadings in all courts and agencies applies to quasi-
judicial bodies, such as the NLRC or Labor Arbiter
[Agpalo (2004)].
Rule 12.03. A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to
do so.
The court censures the practice of counsels who
secures repeated extensions of time to file their
pleadings and thereafter simply let the period
lapse without submitting the pleading on even an
explanation or manifestation of their failure to do
so. There exists a breach of duty not only to the court
but also to the client [Achacoso v. CA, G.R. No. L-
35867 (1973)].
An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to
the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A
failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence on his part [Ford v. Daitol, A.C.
No. 3736 (1995)].
Postponement is not a matter of right but of sound
judicial discretion. [Edrial v Quilat-Quilat, GR. 133625,
(2000)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse
court processes.
It is one thing to exert to the utmost one’s ability to
protect the interest of one’s client. It is quite another
thing to delay if not defeat the recovery of what is
justly due and demandable due to the misleading acts
of a lawyer [Manila Pest Control v. WCC, G.R. No. L-
27662 (1968)].
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the
prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his
victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing part.
Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a
judgment sets at naught the role of courts in
disposing justiciable controversies with finality
[Aguilar v. Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No.
157911 (2006)].
If a lawyer is honestly convinced of the futility of an
appeal in a civil suit, he should not hesitate to inform
his client that mostly likely the verdict will not be
altered. A lawyer should temper his client’s desire to
seek appellate review [Agpalo (2004)].
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.
Purpose: To prevent the suspicion that he is coaching
the witness what to say during the resumption of the
examination; to uphold and maintain fair play with the
other party and to prevent the examining lawyer from
being tempted to coach his own witness to suit his
purpose [“Legal and Judicial Ethics Reviewer” by
Callanta].
Rule 12.06. A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a
witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate
another.
While a lawyer may interview witnesses in advance of
trial or attend to their needs if needed, the lawyer
should avoid any action as may be misrepresented as
an attempt to influence the witness what to say in
court [Agpalo (2004)].
The lawyer who presented a witness knowing him to
be a false witness is criminally liable for offering false
testimony in evidence. The lawyer is both criminally
and administratively liable [Art. 184, Revised Penal
Code (hereinafter, RPC)].
Subornation of perjury is committed by a person who
knowingly and willfully procures another to swear
Page 31 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
falsely and the witness suborned [or induced] does
testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of
perjury [US v. Ballena, G.R. No. L-6294 (1911)].
Rule 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or
harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
It is the duty of a lawyer to abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor and reputation of a party or witness unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is
charged [Sec. 20(f), Rule 138. RoC].
Rights of Witnesses [Sec. 3, Rule 132, RoC]
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper or
insulting questions and from a harsh or insulting
demeanor;
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of
justice require
3. Not to be examined except as to matters
pertinent to the issues before the court;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense 
unless
otherwise provided by law;
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade
the witness’ reputation, but a witness must
answer the fact of any previous 
final
conviction for a criminal offense.
It was highly inconsiderate for the prosecutor and the
defense counsel to trade quips at the precise time the
victim was reliving her harrowing experience. Levity
has no place in the courtroom during the examination
of the victim of rape and at her expense. [People v.
Nuguid, GR. 148991, (2004)]
P.D. 1829 (Penalizing obstruction of apprehension
and prosecution of criminal offenders) penalizes the
following:
1. Threatening directly or indirectly another with
the infliction of any wrong upon his person,
honor or property or that of any immediate
member or members of his family in order to
prevent such person from appearing in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether
lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person
from appearing in the investigation of or in
official proceedings in, criminal cases;
2. Giving of false or fabricated information to
mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies
from apprehending the offender or from
protecting the life or property of the victim; or
fabricating information from the data gathered in
confidence by investigating authorities for
purposes of background information and not for
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
publication and publishing or disseminating the
same to mislead the investigator or to the court.
Rule 12.08. A lawyer shall avoid testifying in
behalf of his client, except:
a) On formal matters, such as the mailing,
authentication or custody of an instrument,
and the like; or
b) On substantial matters, in cases where his
testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in
which event he must, during his testimony,
entrust the trial of the case to another
counsel.
Purpose: The underlying reason for the impropriety of
a lawyer acting in such dual capacity lies in the
difference between the function of a witness and that
of an advocate. The function of a witness is to tell the
facts as he recalls then in answer to questions. The
function of an advocate is that of a partisan. It is
difficult to distinguish between the zeal of an
advocate and the fairness and impartiality of a
disinterested witness. The lawyer will find it hard to
disassociate his relation to his client as an attorney and
his relation to the party as a witness [Agpalo (2004)].
When a lawyer may not testify as witness:
1. When such would adversely affect any lawful
interest of the client with respect to which
confidence has been reposed on him;
2. When, having accepted a retainer, he is to testify
AGAINST his client;
3. When he will serve conflicting interests;
4. When he is to violate confidentiality;
5. When as an attorney, he is to testify on the theory
of the case.
When a lawyer may testify as witness:
1. Formal matters – mailing, authentication,
custody of an instrument;
2. As an expert on his fee;
3. Acting as an Arbitrator;
4. Deposition;
5. On substantial matters where his testimony is
essential to the ends of justice, in which case he
must entrust the trial of the case to another
counsel [PNB v. Uy Teng Piao, G.R. No. L-35252
(1932)]
Page 32 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
d. Reliance on Merits of His/Her
Cause and Avoidance of Any
Impropriety Which Tends to
Influence or Gives the
Appearance of Influence upon
the Courts
CANON 13. A lawyer shall rely upon the merits
of his cause and refrain from any impropriety
which tends to influence, or gives the appearance
of influencing the court.
Note: asked 11 times in the last 25 years as of 2017
[Lex Pareto (2017)].
The judiciary, as the branch of government
tasked to administer justice, to settle justiciable
controversies or disputes involving enforceable
and demandable rights, and to afford redress of
wrongs for the violation of said rights must be
allowed to decide cases independently, free of
outside influence or pressure [In Re: Published
Alleged Threats against Members of the Court in the Plunder
Law Case Hurled by Atty. Leonard De Vera, A.M. No.
01-12-03-SC (2002)].
The Court will not hesitate in future similar situations
to apply the full force of the law and punish for
contempt those who attempt to pressure the Court
into acting one way or the other in any case pending
before it. Grievances, if any, must be ventilated
through the proper channels, i.e., through appropriate
petitions, motions or other pleadings in keeping with
the respect due to the Courts as impartial
administrators of justice entitled to "proceed to the
disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free
from outside interference obstructive of its functions
and tending to embarrass the administration of
justice." The right of petition is conceded to be an
inherent right of the citizen under all free
governments. However, such right, natural and
inherent though it may be, has never been invoked to
shatter the standards of propriety entertained for the
conduct of courts … Moreover, "parties have a
constitutional right to have their causes tried fairly in
court by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by
publication or public clamor. Every citizen has a
profound personal interest in the enforcement of the
fundamental right to have justice administered by the
courts, under the protection and forms of law free
from outside coercion or interference" [Nestle
Philippines, Inc. v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 75209 (1987)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Rule 13.01. A lawyer shall not extend
extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek
opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part
of a lawyer to a judge, uncalled for by the personal
relations of the parties, subject both the judge and the
lawyer to misconstructions of motive and should be
avoided [Canon 3, CPE].
In order to not subject both the judge and the lawyer
to suspicion, the common practice of some lawyers of
making judges and prosecutors godfathers of their
children to enhance their influence and their law
practice should be avoided by judges and lawyers alike
[IBP Committee].
It is improper for a litigant or counsel to see a judge
in chambers and talk to him about a matter related to
the case pending in the court of said judge [Austria v.
Masaquel, G.R. No. L-22536 (1967)].
It is highly improper for a judge to meet privately with
an accused who has a pending case before him,
without the presence of other party [Gallo v. Cordero,
A.M. No. MTJ095-1035, (1995)].
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.
Purpose: Newspaper publications regarding a pending
or anticipated litigation may interfere with a fair trial,
prejudice the administration of justice, or subject a
respondent or an accused to a trial by publicity and
create a public inference of guilt against him [Agpalo
(2004)].
Making public statements in the media regarding a
pending case which tends to arouse public opinion for
or against a party may constitute indirect contempt
[Sec. 3, Rule 71, RoC].
In the original decision of the Supreme Court in Re:
Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the
Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against Former President
Joseph Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC (2001), it was
held that the propriety of granting or denying the
petition involves the weighing out of the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and
the right to public information, on the one hand, and
the fundamental rights of the accused, on the other
hand, along with the constitutional power of a court
to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and
impartial trial. It was held that when these rights race
Page 33 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
against one another, the right of the accused must be
preferred to win, considering the possibility of losing
not only the precious liberty but also the very life of
an accused.
In the resolution of the motion for reconsideration,
the Supreme Court allowed the video recording of
proceedings, but provided that the release of the tapes
for broadcast should be delayed. In so doing,
concerns that those taking part in the proceedings will
be playing to the cameras and will thus be distracted
from the proper performance of their roles – whether
as counsel, witnesses, court personnel, or judges – will
be allayed.
In order to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity,
there must be an allegation and proof that the judges
had been unduly influenced, not simply that they
might be [People v. Teehankee Jr., G.R. No. 111206-08,
(1995), Martelino v. Alejandro, G.R. No. L-30894
(1970)].
A lawyer is equally guilty as the client if he induces the
client to cause the publicity [Strebel v. Figueras, G.R.
No. L-4722 (1954)].
The right to criticize is recognized in concluded
litigations because then the court’s actuations are
thrown open for public consumption and discussion.
[Strebel v. Figueras, GR L-4722 (1954)] However, such
criticisms should still be respectful and done in good
faith [Funa].
In Foodsphere, Inc. v. Mauricio, the Supreme Court found
that the respondent lawyer violated Rule 13.02 “for
despite the pendency of the civil case against him and
the issuance of a status quo order
restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising
and broadcasting of any matter relative to the
complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his
attacks against complainant and its products” [A.C.
No. 7199 (2009)].
Rule 13.03. A lawyer shall not brook or invite
interference by another branch or agency of the
government in the normal course of judicial
proceedings.
Purpose: The rule is based upon the principle of
separation of powers [Aguirre (2006)]. It also
endangers the independence of the judiciary [IBP
Committee].
The Supreme Court is supreme — the third great
department of government entrusted exclusively with
the judicial power to adjudicate with finality all
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
justiciable disputes, public and private. No other
department or agency may pass upon its judgments or
declare them 'unjust.' Consequently, and owing to the
foregoing, not even the President of the Philippines
as Chief Executive may pass judgment on any of the
Court's acts [Maglasang v. People, G.R. No. 90083
(1990)].
4. To the Clients (Canons 14-
22)
The attorney-client relationship is:
a. Strictly personal;
b. Highly confidential;
c. Fiduciary.
A written contract, although the best evidence to show
the presence of an attorney-client relationship is not
essential for the employment of an attorney.
Documentary formalism is not an essential element in
the employment of an attorney; the contract may be
express or implied. To establish the relation, it is
sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney
is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his
profession [Pacana v. Pascual-Lopez, A.C. No. No. 8243
(2009)].
Retainer
1. Either the act of a client by which he engages the
services of an attorney to render legal advice or
to defend and prosecute his cause in court
(general or special) OR the fee which a client pays
to an attorney when the latter is retained [Agpalo
(2004)].
2. The relation of attorney to client begins from the
time an attorney is retained.
a. Availability of Service Without
Discrimination
CANON 14. A lawyer shall not refuse his services
to the needy.
Note: Canon 14 is the 2nd top source of Questions on
the CPR. It was asked 28 times in the last 25 years as
of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)].
General Rule: 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.
A lawyer should decline employment regardless of
how attractive the fee offered may be if its acceptance
will involve:
Page 34 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
1. A violation of any of the rules of the legal
profession
2. Nullification of a contract which he prepared
3. Advocacy in any matter which he had intervened
while in government service
4. Employment which might easily be used as a
means of advertising his professional services or
skills
5. Employment with a collection agency
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. [Agpalo, 2004]
Exceptions:
1. A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy
[Canon 14, CPR]
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies
and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied
to any person by reason of poverty. [Sec. 11,
Art.III, Constitution]
2. A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person
solely on account of the latter’s race, sex, creed
or status of life, or because of his own opinion
regarding the guilt of said person. [Rule 14.01,
CPR]
3. A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation
of an indigent client unless:
• He is in no position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
• He labors under a conflict of interest
between him and the prospective client or
between a present client and the prospective
client. [Rule 14.03, CPR]
Purpose: It is a declared policy of the State to value the
dignity of every human person and guarantee the
rights of every individual, particularly those who
cannot afford the services of counsel [R.A. No. 9999
(Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010)].
R.A. No. 9999 provides incentives for free legal
service. Thus, a lawyer or professional partnerships
rendering actual free legal services shall be entitled to
an allowable deduction from the gross income,
1. The amount that could have been collected for
the actual free legal services rendered OR
2. Up to 10% of the gross income derived from the
actual performance of legal profession,
whichever is lower.
This is different from the 60-hour mandatory legal aid
services under Mandatory Legal Aid Service for Practicing
Lawyers, B.M. No. 2012 (2009).
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Indigent
1. A person who has no visible means of income or
whose income is insufficient for the subsistence
of his family, to be determined by the fiscal or
judge, taking into account the members of his
family dependent upon him for subsistence [Sec.
2, R.A. 6033 (An Act Requiring Courts to Give
Preference to Criminal Cases Where the Party or Parties
Involved are Indigents)]
2. A person who has no visible means of support or
whose income does not exceed P300.00 per
month or whose income even in excess of
P300.00 per month is insufficient for the
subsistence of his family [Sec. 2, R.A. No. 6035
(An Act Requiring Stenographers to Give Free
Transcript of Notes to Indigent and Low Income
Litigants and Providing a Penalty for the
Violation Thereof)].
Laws on indigents or low income litigants:
1. All courts shall give preference to the hearing
and/or disposition of criminal cases where an
indigent is involved either as the offended party
or accused [Sec. 1, R.A. No. 6033]
2. Any indigent litigant may, upon motion, ask the
Court for adequate travel allowance to enable him
and his indigent witnesses to attend the hearing
of a criminal case commenced by his complaint
or filed against him. The allowance shall cover
actual transportation expenses by the cheapest
means from his place of residence to the court
and back. When the hearing of the case requires
the presence of the indigent litigant and/or his
indigent witnesses in court the whole day or for
two or more consecutive days, allowances may,
in the discretion of the Court, also cover
reasonable expenses for meal and lodging [Sec. 1,
R.A. 6034 (An Act Providing Transportation and
Other Allowances for Indigent Litigants)].
A stenographer who has attended a hearing before an
investigating fiscal or trial judge or hearing
commissioner of any quasi-judicial body or
administrative tribunal and has officially taken notes
of the proceeding thereof shall, upon written request
of an indigent or low income litigant, his counsel or
duly authorized representative in the case concerned,
give within a reasonable period to be determined by
the fiscal, judge, commissioner or tribunal hearing the
case, a free certified transcript of notes taken by him
on the case [Sec. 1, R.A. 6035].
This Canon could be read in conjunction with Rule
2.01.
Page 35 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
1. Services Regardless of a Person’s
Status
Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to represent
a person solely on account of the latter’s race, sex,
creed or status of life, or because of his own
opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
It is the duty of an attorney, in the defense of a person
accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the
accused, to present every defense that the law permits,
to the end that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law [Sec. 20(i), Rule 138,
RoC].
Regardless of personal feelings, a lawyer should not
decline representation because a client or a cause is
unpopular or community reaction is adverse [IBP
Committee].
2. Services as Counsel de Officio
Rule 14.02. A lawyer shall not decline, except for
serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as
counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a request from
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its
chapters for rendition of free legal aid.
It is the duty of an attorney never to reject, for any
consideration personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed [Sec. 20(h), Rule 138].
A court may assign an attorney to render professional
aid free of charge to any party in a case, if upon
investigation it appears that the party is destitute and
unable to employ an attorney, and that the services of
counsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice and
to protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty
of the attorney so assigned to render the required
service, unless he is excused therefrom by the court
for sufficient cause shown [Sec. 31, Rule 138].
Counsel de officio - One appointed or assigned by
the court.
Counsel de parte- One employed or retained by the
party himself.
Amicus Curiae – a friend of the court; a person with
strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an
action, but not a party to the action. They commonly
file briefs concerning matters of broad public interest.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Who may be appointed as counsel de officio in criminal
cases:
1. A member of the bar in good standing who, by
reason of their experience and ability, can
competently defend the accused [Sec. 7, Rule
116, RoC]
2. In localities without lawyers:
a. Any person, resident of the province and of
good repute for probity and ability [Sec. 7,
Rule 116, RoC];
Note: In relation to Sec. 34, Rule 138, RoC
this is only allowed in the municipal trial
court.
b. A municipal judge or a lawyer employed in
any branch, subdivision or instrumentality of
the government within the province [Sec. 1,
PD 543 (Authorizing the Designation of
Municipal Judges and Lawyers in any Branch
of the Government Service to Act as
Counsel De Officio for the Accused Who are
Indigent in Places Where There are No
Available Practicing Attorneys)].
Considerations in the appointment of a counsel de
officio:
1. Gravity of the offense;
2. Difficulty of the questions that may arise;
3. Experience and ability of the appointee.
When the court may appoint a counsel de officio
(in criminal actions):
1. Before arraignment, the court shall inform the
accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he
desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed
to defend himself in person or has employed
counsel of his choice, the court must assign a
counsel de officio to defend him, [Sec. 6, Rule 116,
RoC];
2. It is the duty of the clerk of the trial court, upon
filing of a notice of appeal, to ascertain from the
appellant, if confined in prison, whether he
desires the Regional Trial Court, Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court to appoint a
counsel de officio [Sec. 13, Rule 122, RoC];
3. The clerk of the CA shall designate a counsel de
officio if it appears from the case record that:
a. The accused is confined in prison,
b. Is without counsel de parte on appeal, or
c. Has signed the notice of appeal himself, the
clerk of Court of Appeals shall designate a
counsel de officio.
d. An appellant who is not confined in prison
may, upon request, be assigned a counsel de
officio within ten days from receipt of the
Page 36 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
notice to file brief and he establishes his right
thereto [Sec. 2, Rule 124, RoC]
3. Valid Grounds for Refusal to Serve
Rule 14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client unless:
a) He is in no position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
b) He labors under a conflict of interest between
him and the prospective client or between a
present client and the prospective client
Reason: One of the burdens of the privilege to practice
law is to render, when so required by the court, free
legal services to an indigent litigant.
Even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not
refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned
if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s
rights. [Rule 2.02, Canon 2, CPR]
Rule 14.04. A lawyer who accepts the cause of a
person unable to pay his professional fees shall
observe the same standard of conduct governing
his relations with paying clients.
Neither the amount of attorney's fees nor the client's
financial ability to pay such fees should serve as the
test to determine the extent of the lawyer's devotion
to his client’s cause [Agpalo (2004)].
If a lawyer volunteers his services to a client, and
therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees, he is still
bound to attend to a client’s case with all due
diligence and zeal [Blanza v. Arcangel, A.C. No. No.
492 (1967)].
Pursuant to A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC IRR (2009), clients
of the National Legal Aid Committee and the IBP
local chapter’s legal aid offices are exempted from the
payment of legal fees.
Under Sec. 16-D, R.A. No. 9406 (An Act
Reorganizing and Strengthening the Public Attorney's
Office (PAO)), clients of the PAO are exempted from
paying docket and other fees incidental to institution
actions in court and other quasi-judicial bodies.
See also:
1. R.A. No. 6033: AN ACT REQUIRING
COURTS TO GIVE PREFERENCE TO
CRIMINAL CASES WHERE THE PARTY OR
PARTIES INVOLVED ARE INDIGENTS
2. R.A. No. 6034: AN ACT PROVIDING
TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

ALLOWANCES FOR INDIGENT

LITIGANTS Confidence of Clients Secrets of Clients
3. R.A. No. 6035: AN ACT REQUIRING Refer to information
STENOGRAPHERS TO GIVE FREE gained in the
TRANSCRIPT OF NOTES TO INDIGENT professional
AND LOW INCOME LITIGANTS AND Refer to information relationship that the
PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE protected by attorney- client has requested to
VIOLATION THEREOF client privilege under be held inviolate or the
4. R.A. No. 6036: AN ACT PROVIDING THAT the Rules of Court (i.e., disclosure of which
BAIL SHALL NOT, WITH CERTAIN information pertinent would be embarrassing
EXCEPTIONS, BE REQUIRED IN CASES to the case being or would likely be
OF VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL OR CITY handled). detrimental to the client
ORDINANCES AND IN CRIMINAL (i.e., information not
OFFENSES WHEN THE PRESCRIBED exactly pertinent to the
PENALTY FOR SUCH OFFENSES IS NOT case).
HIGHER THAN ARRESTO MAYOR
AND/OR A FINE OF TWO THOUSAND Communication may be transmitted by any form of
PESOS OR BOTH agency, such as a messenger, an interpreter or any
other form of transmission. It is immaterial whether
b. Candor, Fairness, and Loyalty to the agent is the agent of the attorney, the client or
both.
Clients
Question of privilege is determined by the court. The
CANON 15. A lawyer shall observe candor, burden of proof is on the party who asserts the
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and privilege.
transactions with his clients.
2. Privileged Communications
Note: Canon 15 is the top source of Questions on the
CPR. It was asked 31 times in the last 25 years as of
Rule 15.02. A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on
2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)].
privileged communication in respect of matters
disclosed to him by a prospective client.
1. Confidentiality Rule
Purpose: To make the prospective client free to discuss
Purpose: To protect the client from possible breach of
whatever he wishes with the lawyer without fear that
confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer
what he tells the lawyer will not be divulged nor used
[Hadjula v. Madianda, A.C. No. No. 6711 (2007)]
against him, and for the lawyer to be equally free to
obtain information from the prospective client [IBP
It demands of an attorney an undivided allegiance, a
Committee].
conspicuous and high degree of good faith,
disinterestedness, candor, fairness, loyalty, fidelity and
Requisites:
absolute integrity in all his dealings and transactions
a. The person to whom information is given is a
with his clients and an utter renunciation of every
lawyer.
personal advantage conflicting in any way, directly or
indirectly, with the interest of his client [Oparel, Sr. v. • However, if a person is pretending to be a
Abraria, A.C. No. 959 (1971)]. lawyer and client discloses confidential
communications, the attorney-client
Confidential communication – Information privilege applies;
transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between • This includes persons appointed as counsel de
attorney and client in confidence and by means which officio
so far as the client is aware, discloses the information b. There is a legal relationship existing, except in
to no third person other than one reasonably cases of prospective clients;
necessary for the transmission of the information or c. Legal advice must be sought from the attorney in
the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was his professional capacity with respect to
given [Mercado v. Vitriolo, A.C. No. No. 5108 (2005)]. communications relating to that purpose.
d. The client must intend that the communication
be confidential.

Page 37 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Persons entitled to privilege
a. The lawyer, client, and third persons who by
reason of their work have acquired information
about the case being handled, including:
• Attorney’s secretary, stenographer and clerk
• Interpreter, messengers, or agents
transmitting communication
• Accountant, scientist, physician, or engineer
who has been hired for effective
consultation
b. Assignee of the client’s interest as far as the
communication affects the realization of the
assigned interest.
Scope
a. Period to be considered is the date when the
privileged communication was made by the client
to the attorney in relation to either a crime
committed in the past or with respect to a crime
intended to be committed in the future. If the
crime was committed in the past, the privilege
applies. If it is still to be committed, the privilege
does not apply, because the communication
between a lawyer and his client must be for a
lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end
to be privileged [People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
115439 (1996)].
b. Limited only to communications which are
legitimately and properly within the scope of a
lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not
extend to those made in contemplation of a crime
or perpetration of a fraud. It is not within the
profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to how
he may commit a crime. [Genato v. Silapan, A.C.
No. 4078 (2003)].
c. Embraces not only oral or written statements but
also actions, signs or other means of
communications.
d. An attorney cannot, without the consent of his
client, be examined as to any communication
made by the client to him or his advice given
thereon in the course of professional
employment; nor can an attorney’s secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
consent of the client and his employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has
been acquired in such capacity [Sec. 24(b), Rule
130].
General rule: As a matter of public policy, a client’s
identity should not be shrouded in mystery. Thus, a
lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to
divulge the name or identity of this client.
Exceptions: Client identity is privileged in the following
instances:
Page 38 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
a. Where a strong probability exists that revealing
the client's name would implicate that client in
the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's
advice
b. Where disclosure would open the client to civil
liability
c. Where the government's lawyers have no case
against an attorney's client unless, by revealing
the client’s name, the said name would furnish
the only link that would form the chain of
testimony necessary to convict an individual of a
crime [Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938
(1996)].
Purposes:
a. The court has a right to know that the client
whose privileged information is sought to be
protected is flesh and blood.
b. The privilege begins to exist only after the
attorney-client relationship has been established.
The attorney-client privilege does not attach
unless there is a client.
c. The privilege generally pertains to the subject
matter of the relationship.
d. Due process considerations require that the
opposing party should, as a general rule, know his
adversary [Regala v. Sandiganbayan, supra.].
Information relating to the identity of the client may
fall within the ambit of the privilege when the client’s
name itself has an independent significance, such that
disclosure would then reveal client confidences
[Regala v. Sandiganbayan, supra]
General rule: The protection given to the client is
perpetual and does not cease with the termination of
the litigation, nor is it affected by the client’s ceasing
to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by
any other change of relation between them. It even
survives the death of the client [Bun Siong Yao v.
Aurelio, A.C. No. No. 7023 (2006)]
Canon 21 enjoins a lawyer to preserve the confidence
and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client
relation is terminated. The privilege continues even
after the termination of the attorney-client
relationship. It outlasts the lawyer’s engagement. It
ceases only when waived by the client himself or after
his death, by his heir or representative. [Baldwin v. CIR,
(1942)]
Exception: Some privileged communications lose their
privileged character by some supervening act done
pursuant to the purpose of the communication (e.g., a
communication intended by the client to be sent to a
third person through his attorney loses confidential
character once it reached the third party).
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Examples of privileged matters:
• Work product of lawyer (his effort, research and
thought contained in his file);
• Report of a physician, an accountant, an engineer
or a technician, whose services have been secured
by a client as part of his communication to his
attorney or by the attorney to assist him in
rendering effective legal assistance to his client;
• Records concerning an accident in which a party
is involved;
• Consultation which has to do with the
preparation of a client to take the witness stand.
Betrayal of trust: Revelation of secrets
Any attorney-at-law who, by any malicious breach of
professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance shall prejudice his client or reveal any of the
secrets learned by him in his professional capacity
shall be criminally liable [Art. 209, RPC].
3. Conflict of Interest
Rule 15.01. A lawyer, in conferring with a
prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a
conflict with another client or his own interest, and
if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
Rule 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.
The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned
to prevent situations wherein a lawyer would be
representing a client whose interest is directly adverse
to any of his present or former clients [Tulio v.
Buhangin, A.C. No. No. 7110, (2016)].
It is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from
representing new clients whose interests oppose those
of a former client in any manner, whether or not they
are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated
cases [Orola v. Ramos, A.C. No. 9860 (2013)].
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer
represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties [Hornilla v. Salunat, A.C. No. 5804
(2003)].
It is only upon strict compliance with the condition
of full disclosure of facts that a lawyer may appear
against his client; otherwise, his representation of
conflicting interests is reprehensible. Such prohibition
Page 39 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
is founded on principles of public policy and good
taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one
of trust and confidence of the highest degree [Nuigue
v. Sedillo, A.C. No. 9906 (2013)].
Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the
client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance
of treachery and double-dealing for only then can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice [Gonzales v. Cabucana, A.C.
No. 6836 (2006)].
Where a lawyer is disqualified from appearing as
counsel in a case because of conflict of interest with
the law firm of which he is a member, any member,
associate, or assistant therein is similarly disqualified
or prohibited from so acting. [Hilado v. David, G.R.
No. L-961, (1949)].
Requisites
a. There are conflicting duties;
b. The acceptance of the new relations invites or
actually leads to unfaithfulness or double-dealing
to another client; or
c. The attorney will be called upon to use against his
first client any knowledge acquired in the
previous employment.
Tests of conflict of interest
a. Whether the acceptance of a new relation will
prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client
or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in its performance.
b. If the acceptance of the new retainer will require
the attorney to perform an act which will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in
which he represented him and also whether he
will be called upon in his new relation to use
against the first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection.
c. Whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the
lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it
is his duty to oppose it for the other client
[Hornilla v. Salunat, supra].
d. Whether the lawyer will be asked to use against
his former client any confidential information
acquired through their connection or previous
employment [Palm v. Iledan, Jr., A.C. No. 8242
(2009)]
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
The test to determine whether there is a conflict
of interest in the representation is probability, not
certainty, of conflict.
General rule: Representing adverse interest may result
in:
a. Disqualification as counsel in the new case;
b. If prejudicial to interests of latter client, setting
aside of a judgment;
c. Administrative and criminal (for betrayal of trust)
liability;
d. Forfeiture of attorney’s fees.
Exception: Representation of conflicting interests is
allowed where clients knowingly consent to the dual
representation.
Exception to the exception: A lawyer cannot continue
representing a client in an action even with the client’s
consent after the lawyer brings suit in his own behalf,
against the defendant if it is uncertain whether the
defendant will be able to satisfy both judgments. A
lawyer is not authorized to have financial stakes in the
subject matter of the suit brought in behalf of his
client. [Gamilla v. Marino Jr, AC 4763, (2003)]
Rule 15.04. A lawyer may, with the written
consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
An attorney’s knowledge of the law and his reputation
for fidelity may make it easy for the disputants to
settle their differences amicably. However, he shall
not act as counsel for any of them. [Agpalo (2004)]
General rule: A lawyer may not represent two opposing
parties at any point in time. A lawyer need not be the
counsel-of-record of either party. It is enough that the
counsel had a hand in the preparation of the pleading
of one party.
Exception: When the parties agree AND when such is
for amicable settlement [Agpalo (2004)].
4. Candid and Honest Advice to Clients
Rule 15.05. A lawyer when advising his client shall
give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and
probable results of the client’s case, neither
overstating nor understating the prospects of the
case.
A lawyer is bound to give candid and honest
opinion on the merit or lack of merit of client’s
case, neither overstating nor understating the
prospect of the case. He should also give an honest
Page 40 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
opinion as to the probable results of the case [Agpalo
(2004)].
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by
him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of
his knowledge, information, and belief there is good
ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for
delay [Sec. 3, Rule 7, RoC].
Lawyers are not merely hired employees who must
unquestionably do the bidding of the client, however
unreasonable this may be, when tested by their own
expert appreciation of the facts, applicable law and
jurisprudence. Counsel must counsel [Periquet v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 91298, (1990)].
5. Compliance with Laws
Rule 15.07. A lawyer shall impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and principles of
fairness.
It is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain
such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to
be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be
honestly debatable under the law [Sec. 20(c), Rule 138,
RoC].
A lawyer is required to represent his client within the
bounds of law. He is enjoined to employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and not to allow his client to dictate the
procedure in handling the case.
A lawyer appears in court in representation of his
client not only as an advocate but also as an officer of
the court. To permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous
practices for the protection of the supposed rights of
their clients is to defeat the administration of justice
[Agpalo (2004)].
A lawyer is not a gun for hire [Millare v. Montero, A.C.
No. 3283, (1995)].
6. Concurrent Practice of Another
Profession
Rule 15.08. A lawyer who is engaged in another
profession or occupation concurrently with the
practice of law shall make clear to his client
whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another
capacity.
Exercise of dual profession is not prohibited but a
lawyer must make it clear when he is acting as a lawyer
or when he is acting in another capacity, especially in
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
occupations related to the practice of law [In re:
Rothman, 12 N.J. 528 (1953)].
Purpose: Certain ethical considerations may be
operative in one profession and not in the other
[Agpalo (2004)].
Impropriety rises only when the business is
conducted in a manner inconsistent with his duties as
a member of the bar [IBP Committee].
A lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client
but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty and good
faith. Business transactions between an attorney and
his client are disfavored and discouraged by policy of
law because by virtue of a lawyer’s office, he is an easy
position to take advantage of the credulity and
ignorance of his client. Thus, there is no presumption
of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing in favor
of lawyers [Nakpil v. Valdez, A.C. No. No. 2040
(1998)].
c. Client’s Moneys and Properties
CANON 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come
into his possession.
Note: asked 6 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex
Pareto (2017)].
Lawyers cannot acquire or purchase, even at a public
or judicial auction, either in person or through the
mediation of another, the property and rights which
may be the object of any litigation in which they take
part by virtue of their profession [Art. 1491(5), Civil
Code].
Purpose: The prohibition is based on the existing
relation of trust or the lawyer’s peculiar control over
the property.
The duty of a lawyer is derived from the law on agency
which requires separation, accounting, notification
and delivery by agents possessing the principal’s
property [Funa].
Requisites
1. There is an attorney-client relationship;
2. The property or interest of the client is in
litigation;
3. The attorney takes part as counsel in the case;
4. The attorney purchases or acquires the property
or right, by himself or through another, during
Page 41 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
the pendency of litigation [Laig v. CA, G.R. No.
L-26882 (1978)]
Any scheme which has the effect of circumventing
the law comes within the prohibition [Agpalo (2004)].
Instances when prohibition in Art. 1491, Civil Code applies:
• Even if the purchase or lease of the property in
litigation is in favor of a partnership, of which
counsel is a partner [Mananquil v. Villegas, A.C.
No. No. 2430 (1990)]
• If the purchase is made by the wife of the
attorney [In re: Calderon, G.R. No. L-2409 (1907)]
• Mortgage of property in litigation to the lawyer.
In this case, acquisition is merely postponed until
foreclosure but effect is the same. It also includes
assignment of property [Ordonio v. Eduarte, A.M.
No. 3216, (1992)].
• The purchase by a lawyer of the property in
litigation from his client is void and could
produce no legal effect [Art. 1409(7), Civil Code]
Instances when prohibition in Art. 1491 does not apply:
• When the attorney is not a counsel in the case
involving the same property at the time of
acquisition;
• When purchaser is a corporation, even if the
attorney was an officer [Tuason v. Tuason, G.R.
No. L-3404 (1951)]
• When sale takes place after termination of
litigation, except if there was fraud or use/abuse of
confidential information or where lawyer
exercised undue influence;
• Where property in question is stipulated as part
of attorney’s fees, provided that, the same is
contingent upon the favorable outcome of
litigation and, provided further, that the fee must
be reasonable.
1. Fiduciary Relationship
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money
or property collected or received for or from the
client.
Purpose: The lawyer merely holds said money or
property in trust.
When a lawyer collects or receives money from his
client for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees,
registration fees, transportation and office expenses),
he should promptly account to the client how the
money was spent. If he does not use the money for
its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
the client [Belleza v. Macasa, A.C. No. No. 7815
(2009)].
The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on money
in his hands would not relieve him from the duty
of promptly accounting for the funds received
[Daroy v. Legaspi, A.C. No. No. 936 (1975)].
Ethical and practical considerations make it both
natural and imperative for a lawyer to issue receipts,
even if not demanded, and to keep copies of the
receipts for his own records [Tarog v. Ricafort, A.C. No.
8243 (2011)].
A lawyer's failure, to return upon demand, the funds
held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his
own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his
client [Sison v. Camacho, A.C. No. No. 10910, (2016)].
A perusal of the Special Power of Attorney issued by
Camino and her husband to Atty. Pasagui clearly
shows that the loan application was in their behalf and
that the property mortgaged was likewise their
property. If it were true that it was a personal loan to
him, Atty. Pasagui failed to explain why he used
Camino's property as collateral. Thus, by his failure to
make good of their agreement to use the loan
proceeds for the transfer of the title in Camino's
name, Atty. Pasagui not only betrayed the trust and
confidence reposed upon him but he is also guilty of
engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. Atty.
Pasagui’s failure to inform Camino of the status of the
transfer of title despite the release of the loan to
finance the transfer of the title, is a clear indicium that
he converted the money for his own use [Camino v.
Pasagui, A.C. No. 11095, (2016)].
The [CPR] exacts from lawyers not only a firm
respect for law, legal processes and the courts but
also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and
good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys
entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary
relationship. Instead of promoting respect for law
and the legal processes, respondent callously
demeaned the legal profession by taking money from
a client under the pretext of having connections with
a Member of this Court [Berbano v. Barcelona, A.C. No.
6084 (2003)].
The actuations of respondent in retaining for his
personal benefit over a one-year period, the amount
of P5,220.00 received by him on behalf of his client,
the complainant herein, depriving her of its use, and
withholding information on the same despite
inquiries made by her, is glaringly a breach of the
Lawyer's Oath to which he swore observance, and an
Page 42 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
evident transgression of the [CPE] … substantially
reiterated in Rules 16.01. 16.02 and 16.03 of the [CPR]
[Licuanan v. Melo, A.M. No. 2361 (1989)].
2. Commingling of Funds
Rule 16.02. A lawyer shall keep the funds of each
client separate and apart from his own and those
of others kept by him.
A lawyer should not commingle a client’s money
with that of other clients and with his private
funds, nor use the client’s money for his personal
purposes without the client’s consent [Daroy v.
Legaspi, A.C. No. No. 936 (1975)].
Respondent breached [Canon 16]. His acts of
acquiring for himself complainant’s lots entrusted to
him are, by any standard, acts constituting gross
misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a
wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. Such
conduct on the part of respondent degrades not only
himself but also the name and honor of the legal
profession. He violated this Courts mandate that
lawyers must at all times conduct themselves,
especially in their dealing with their clients and the
public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach. [Hernandez v. Go, A.C. No. 1526
(2005)].
3. Delivery of Funds
Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and
may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall
also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments
and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money
of his client after it has been demanded, he may be
punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who
has misbehaved in his official transactions; but
proceedings under Sec. 25, Rule 138 shall not be a bar
to criminal prosecution.
Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a
judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and
must be immediately turned over to them [Busiños v.
Ricafort, A.C. No. No. 4349 (1997)]
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
An attorney has a lien upon the funds documents and
papers of his client which have lawfully come into his
possession and may retain the same until his lawful
fees and disbursements have been paid and may apply
such funds to the satisfaction thereof [Sec. 37, Rule
138, RoC]
But, a lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally
appropriate his client’s money for himself by the
mere fact alone that the client owes him
attorney’s fees. The fact alone that a lawyer has a lien
for fees on moneys in his hands collected for his client
does not relieve him of his duty to promptly account
for the moneys received; his failure to do so
constitutes professional misconduct [Rayos v.
Hernandez, G. R. 169079 (2007)].
4. Borrowing or Lending
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money
from his client unless the client’s interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except when, in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a
legal matter he is handling for the client.
A lawyer is prohibited from borrowing money
from his client
Purpose: This rule is intended to prevent the lawyer
from taking advantage of his influence over his client
[Junio v. Grupo, A.C. No. 5020 (2001)].
The canon presumes that the client is disadvantaged
by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal maneuverings
to renege on her obligation [Frias v. Lozada, A.C. No.
No. 6656 (2005)].
The profession demands of an attorney an absolute
abdication of every personal advantage conflicting in
any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of his
client [Barnachea v. Quiocho, A.C. No. No. 5925 (2003)].
A lawyer who borrows jewelry from his client in order
to obtain and appropriate for himself the proceeds
from a pledge is liable under this canon [Yu v. Dela
Cruz, A.C. No. No. 10912, (2016)].
A lawyer is prohibited from lending money to his
client
Purpose: The canon intends to assure the lawyer’s
independent professional judgment, for if the lawyer
acquires a financial interest in the outcome of the
Page 43 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
case, the free exercise of his judgment may be
adversely affected [Agpalo (2004)].
Exception: When, in the interest of justice, he has to
advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is
handling.
Prohibition against purchase of “property in
litigation”
The following persons cannot acquire by purchase,
even in a public action, either in person or through
the mediation of another, property and rights in
litigation, before the court within whose jurisdiction,
they exercise their respective functions: [Art. 1491,
Civil Code]:
a. Justices, Judges, Prosecuting Attorneys
b. Clerks, officers and employees connected with
the administration of justice
c. Lawyers with respect to property rights which
may be the object of litigation, in which they may
take part by virtue of their profession.
The prohibition is absolute and permanent and
rests on consideration of public policy.
The prohibition applies in the following:
• Redemption, compromise and renunciation of
the subject in litigation
• Lease
• Assignment of rights over a property in
consideration of legal service while the case is
pending [Ordonio v. Eduarte, AC 3216, (1992)]
The prohibition does not apply in the following:
• Where the property purchased by the lawyer was
not involved in litigation
• Where the sale took place before it became
involved in the suit
• Where the attorney at the time of the purchase
was not the counsel in the case
• Where the purchaser of the property in litigation
was a corporation, despite the attorney being an
officer thereof
• Where the sale took place after the termination
of the litigation, the lawyer may accept an
assignment from his client of a money judgment
rendered in the client’s favor in a case in which
he was not the counsel, as payment for
professional services performed in another case
d. Fidelity to Client’s Cause
CANON 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause
of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him.
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Note: asked 3 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex
Pareto (2017)].
The failure to exercise due diligence and the
abandonment of a client’s cause make such a lawyer
unworthy of the trust which the client has reposed on
him [Cantilller v. Potenciano, A.C. No. No. 3195 (1989)].
Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, no
fear or judicial disfavor or public unpopularity should
restrain him from the full discharge of his duty
[Santiago v. Fojas, A.M. No. 4103 (1995)].
In the discharge of his duty of entire devotion to
the client's cause, a lawyer should present every
remedy or defense authorized by law in support
of his client’s cause, regardless of his personal
views. He should not be afraid of the possibility that
he may displease the judge or the general public
[Agpalo (2004)].
e. Competence and Diligence
CANON 18. A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
Note: asked 13 times in the last 25 years as of 2017
[Lex Pareto (2017)].
A lawyer must exercise ordinary diligence or that
reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to
the character of the business he undertakes to do, as
any other member of the bar similarly situated commonly
possesses and exercises [Pajarillo v. WCC, G.R. No. L-
42927 (1980)].
In the absence of evidence on the contrary, however,
a lawyer is presumed to be prompt and diligent in the
performance of his obligations and to have employed
his best efforts, learning, and ability in the protection
of his client’s interests and in the discharge of his
duties as an officer of the court [Agpalo (2004)].
1. Adequate Preparation
Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
A lawyer should safeguard his client’s rights and
interests by thorough study and preparation,
mastering applicable law and facts involved in a case,
and keeping constantly abreast of the latest
jurisprudence and developments in all branches of the
law [Agpalo (2004)].
Page 44 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and
time to his cases. This is the reason why a practicing
lawyer should accept only so many cases he can
handle. [Legarda v. CA, G.R. No. 94457 (1991)]
The lawyer’s diligence and dedication to his work and
profession not only promote the interest of his client,
it likewise help attain the ends of justice by
contributing to the proper and speedy administration
of cases, bring prestige of the bar and maintain respect
to the legal profession [Endaya v. Oca, A.C. No. 3967
(2003)].
2. Negligence
Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
If by reason of the lawyer’s negligence, actual loss has
been caused to his client, the latter has a cause of
action against him for damages [Callanta].
General rule: A client is bound by the attorney’s
conduct, negligence and mistake in handling the case
or in management of litigation and in procedural
technique, and he cannot be heard to complain that
result might have been different had his lawyer
proceeded differently.
• Doctrine of Imputed Knowledge: Notice to
counsel is notice to client
Exceptions: The client is not so bound where the
ignorance, incompetence or inexperience of lawyer is
so great and error so serious that the client, who has
good cause, is prejudiced and denied a day in court
[People v. Manzanilla, G.R. No. L-17436 (1922); Alarcon
v. CA, G.R. No. 126802 (2000)]
Examples of lawyer’s negligence:
• Failure of counsel to ask for additional time to
answer a complaint resulting in a default
judgment against his client (Mapua v. Mendoza,
G.R. No. L-19295 (1923)]
• Failure to ascertain date of receipt from post
office of notice of decision resulting in the non-
perfection of the appellant’s appeal [Joven-De Jesus
v. PNB, G.R. No. L-19299 (1964)]
• Failure to file briefs within the reglementary
period [People v. Cawili, G.R. No. L-30543, (1970)]
• Failure to attend a trial without filing a motion
for postponement or without requesting either of
his two partners in the law office to take his place
and appear for the defendants [Gaerlan v. Bernal,
G.R. No. L-4039 (1952)]
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
• Failure to appear at pre-trial [Agravante v. Patriarca,
G.R. No. L-48324 (1990)]
• Failure of counsel to notify clients of the
scheduled trial which prevented the latter to look
for another lawyer to represent them while
counsel was in the hospital [Ventura v. Santos, 59
Phil. 123 (1993)]
• Failure to appear simply because the client did
not go to counsel’s office on the date of the trial
as was agreed upon (Alcoriza v. Lumakang, A.M.
No. 249 (1978)]
• Failure to pay the appellate docket fee after
receiving the amount for the purpose [Capulong v.
Alino, A.M. No. 381 (1968)]
• Failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration and
to update clients of the adverse result of a case
[Orazme v. Oro, A.C. No. No. 10945, (2016)]
• Withdrawing from a case without the proper
motion and without informing the client [Chang
v. Hidalgo, A.C. No. No. 6934 (2016)]
3. Collaborating Counsel
Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal
service which he knows or should know that he is
not qualified to tender. However, he may render
such service if, with the consent of his client, he
can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is
competent on the matter
When a lawyer accepts a case, whether for a fee or
not, his acceptance is an implied representation:
a. That he possesses the requisite degree of
academic learning, skill and ability necessary in
the practice of his profession;
b. That he will exert his best judgment in the
prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted
to him;
c. That he will exercise ordinary diligence or that
reasonable degree of care and skill demanded of
the business he undertakes to do, to protect the
client’s interests and take all steps or do all acts
necessary thereof [Uy v. Tansinsin, A.C. No. 8252
(2009)]; and
d. That he will take steps as will adequately
safeguard his client’s interests [Islas v. Platon, G.R.
No. L-23183 (1924)]
A collaborating counsel is a lawyer who is
subsequently engaged to assist another lawyer already
handling a particular case for a client. He cannot just
enter his appearance as collaborating counsel without
the conformity of the first counsel.
Page 45 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
The same diligence of the first counsel is required of
the collaborating counsel [Sublay v. NLRC, G.R. No.
130104, (2000)].
4. Duty to Apprise Client
Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable period of time to client’s
request for information.
Duty to Keep the Client Fully Informed
a. The client must receive from the lawyer, full and
periodic updates on the developments affecting
the case;
b. The lawyer should apprise the client of the mode
and the manner which he is utilizing to defend
the clients interests;
c. The lawyer must advise the client of the risks,
alternatives and their consequences; and
d. The client must be informed within the period to
appeal to enable him to decide whether or not he
will still seek appellate review of an adverse
decision.
The relationship of lawyer-client being one of
confidence, there is ever-present the need for the
lawyer to inform timely and adequately the client
of important developments affecting the client’s
case [Carandang v. Obmina, A.C. No. 7813 (2009)].
Even if the lawyer was honestly and sincerely
protecting the interests of his client, he still does not
have the right to waive the appeal without the
knowledge and consent of his client [Abay v. Montesino,
A.C. No. 5718 (2003)].
The client should not, however, sit idly by. It is also
his duty to make proper inquiries from his counsel
concerning his case, in keeping with that standard of
care which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon
his important business [Agpalo (2004)].
f. Representation with Zeal within
Legal Bounds
CANON 19. A lawyer shall represent his client
with zeal within the bounds of the law.
Note: asked 8 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex
Pareto (2017)].
A lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice; To that end, his client’s
success is wholly subordinate and his conduct
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

ought to and must always be unscrupulously Within client’s Within counsel’s

observant of law and ethics [Magsalang v. People, GR. control control
90083, (1990)]. upon, and the subject remedy, to bring the
matter of the litigation claim, demand, cause of
1. Use of Fair and Honest Means are all within the action, or subject matter
exclusive control of a of the suit to hearing,
Rule 19.01. A lawyer shall employ only fair and client. trial, determination,
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his judgment, and
client and shall not present, participate in execution, are within
presenting or threaten to present unfounded the exclusive control of
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage the attorney [Belandres
in any case or proceeding. v. Lopez Sugar Central
Mill, G.R. No. L-6869
It is the duty of an attorney to employ, for the purpose (1955)].
of maintaining the causes confided to him, such
means only as are consistent with truth and honor, An attorney may not impair, compromise, settle,
and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial surrender, or destroy rights without his client's
officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law consent. A lawyer has no implied authority to waive
[Sec. 20(d), Rule 138, RoC]. his client’s right to appeal or to withdraw a pending
appeal.
A lawyer should not file or threaten to file any
unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against If a lawyer believes that the appeal of his client is
the adversaries of his client designed to secure a frivolous, he cannot move to dismiss the appeal,
leverage to compel adversaries to yield or withdraw without the consent of his client. His remedy is to
their own cases against the lawyer’s client [Pena v. withdraw from the case People v Pagarao, GR. 930026-
Aparicio, A.C. No. No. 7298 (2007)]. 27, (1991)].

2. Client’s Fraud Presumption of Authority

An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to
represent any cause in which he appears in all stages
Rule 19.02. A lawyer who has received of the litigation and no written authority is required to
information that his client has, in the course of the
authorize him to appear. A mere denial by a party that
representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person
he has authorized an attorney to appear, in the
or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to
absence of compelling reason, is insufficient to
rectify the same, and failing which he shall
overcome the presumption especially when the denial
terminate the relationship with such client in
comes after an adverse judgment. [Agpalo (2004)].
accordance with the Rules of Court.

This rule merely requires the lawyer to terminate his g. Attorney’s fees
relationship with the client in the event the latter fails
or refuses to rectify the fraud. The lawyer may not CANON 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and
volunteer the information concerning the client’s reasonable fees.
commission of fraud to anyone, as it will violate his
obligation to maintain the client’s secrets undisclosed Note: Canon 20 is the 3rd top source of Questions on
[Agpalo (2004)]. the CPR. It was asked 22 times in the last 25 years as
of 2017 [Lex Pareto (2017)].
3. Procedure in Handling a Case
Any counsel worthy of his hire is entitled to be
Rule 19.03. A lawyer shall not allow his client to fully recompensed for his services. With his capital
dictate the procedure on handling the case. consisting solely of his brains and with his skill,
acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in
the expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to
Within client’s Within counsel’s
the protection of any judicial tribunal against any
control control
attempt of the part of the client to escape payment of
Substantial Aspect Procedural Aspect his fees [Albano v. Caloma, A.C. No. 528 (1967)].
The cause of action, the All the proceedings in
claim or demand sued court to enforce the

Page 46 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
An attorney is entitled to have and to recover from
his client no more than a reasonable compensation
for his services with a view to:
1. The importance of the subject matter of the
controversy;
2. The extent of the services rendered; and
3. The professional standing of the attorney.
No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys
as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation
and may disregard such testimony and base its
conclusion on its own professional knowledge.
A written contract for services shall control the
amount to be paid therefore unless found by the court
to be unconscionable or unreasonable [Sec. 24, Rule
138, RoC].
Subject to the availability of funds, the court may, in
its discretion, order an attorney employed as counsel
de officio to be compensated in such a sum as the court
may fix in accordance with Sec. 24, Rule 138, RoC
[Sec. 32, Rule 138, RoC].
The mere fact that an agreement had been reached
between attorney and client fixing the amount of the
attorney’s fees, does not insulate such agreement
from review and modification by the Court where the
fees clearly appear to be excessive or unreasonable
[Tanhueco v. De Dumo, A.M. No. 1437 (1989)].
When a lawyer cannot recover the full amount
stipulated in the contract
1. When the services were not performed, and if the
lawyer withdrew before the case was finished, he
will be allowed only reasonable fees;
2. When there is justified dismissal of an attorney,
the contract will be nullified and payment will be
on quantum meruit basis;
3. When the stipulated fees are unconscionable or
unreasonable;
4. When the stipulated fees are in excess of what is
expressly provided by law;
5. When the lawyer is guilty of fraud or bad faith in
the manner of his employment;
6. When the counsel’s services are worthless
because of negligence;
7. When the contract is contrary to laws, morals,
and good policies.
When there is no express contract
The absence of a formal contract will not negate the
payment of attorney’s fees because the contract may
be express or implied. In the absence of an express
contract, payment of attorney’s fees may be justified
by virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des (I
do and you give) which is based on the principle that
Page 47 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
“no one shall enrich himself at the expense of
another” [Corpus v. CA, G.R. No. L-40424 (1980)].
Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the
following factors in determining his fees:
a) The time spent and the extent of the services
rendered or required;
b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved;
c) The importance of the subject matter;
d) The skill demanded;
e) The probability of losing other employment
as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;
f) The customary charges for similar services
and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter
to which he belongs;
g) The amount involved in the controversy and
the benefits resulting to the client from the
service;
h) The contingency or certainty of
compensation;
i) The character of the employment, whether
occasional or established; and
j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
Manners by which attorneys may be paid
• A fixed or absolute fee which is payable
regardless of the result of the case;
• A contingent fee that is conditioned upon the
securing of a favorable judgment and recovery of
money or property and the amount of which may
be on a percentage basis;
• A fixed fee payable per appearance;
• A fixed fee computed by the number of hours
spent;
• A fixed fee based on a piece of work;
• A combination of any of the above stipulated
fees.
Rule 20.02. A lawyer shall, in cases of referral,
with the consent of the client, be entitled to a
division of fees in proportion to work performed
and responsibility assumed.
The referral of a client by a lawyer to another lawyer
does not entitle the former to a commission or to a
portion of the attorney’s fees. It is only when, in
addition to the referral, he performs legal service or
assumes responsibility in the case that he will be
entitled to a fee [Agpalo (2004)].
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
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

whatsoever related to his professional employment Champertous Contract Contingent Contract

from anyone other than the client.
Purpose: The rule is designed to secure the lawyer’s
fidelity to the client’s cause and to prevent that
situation in which receipt by him of a rebate or
commission from another in connection with the
client’s cause may interfere with the full discharge of
his duty to his client [Agpalo (2004)].
It is the duty of an attorney to accept no
compensation in connection with his client’s business
except from him or with his knowledge and approval
[Sec. 20(e), Rule 138, RoC].
A corollary of the foregoing rule is the principle that
whatever a lawyer receives from the opposite party in
the service of his client belongs to the client. A lawyer
may not claim the fees in the concept of damages
awarded by the court in favor the client, the latter and
not the former being entitled thereto, except when he
and his client have agreed that whatever amount the
court may award as attorney's fees would form part of
the lawyer's compensation [Agpalo (2004)].
This contract is void for
being against public It is a valid agreement.
policy
Contingent fee contracts are subject to the
supervision and close scrutiny of the court in order
that clients may be protected from unjust charges. A
much higher compensation is allowed as contingent
fees because of the risk that the lawyer may get
nothing if the suit fails [Masmud v. NLRC, G.R. No.
183385 (2009)].
3. Attorney’s Liens
RETAINING LIEN
An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds,
documents and papers of his client which have
lawfully come into his possession. Thus:
a. He may retain the same until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid;
b. May apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.
[Sec. 37, Rule 138, RoC]

1. Acceptance Fees Requisites:

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the
duty of fidelity to the client’s cause [Emiliano Court
Townhouses Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, A.C. No.
No. 5162 (2003)].
a. Attorney-client relationship;
b. Lawful possession by lawyer of the client’s funds,
documents and papers in his professional
capacity; and
c. Unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees or
disbursements.

Failure to render the legal services agreed upon, CHARGING LIEN

despite receipt of an acceptance fee, is a clear violation
of the CPR [Macarulay v. Seriña, A.C. No. No. 6591
(2005)].
2. Contingency Fee Arrangements
Champertous Contract Contingent Contract
A contingent contract
is an agreement in
A champertous contract which the lawyer’s fee,
is one where the lawyer usually a fixed
stipulates with his client percentage of what
that he will bear all the may be recovered in
expenses for the the action, is made to
prosecution of the case, depend upon the
the recovery of things or success in the effort to
property being claimed, enforce or defend the
and the latter pays only client’s right. The
upon successful lawyer does not
litigation. undertake to shoulder
the expenses of
litigation.
He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all
judgments for the payment of money, and executions
issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has
secured in a litigation of his client. This lien exists
from and after the time when he shall have caused:
a. A statement of his claim of such lien to be
entered upon the records of the court rendering
such judgment, or issuing such execution; and
b. Written notice thereof to be delivered to his
client and to the adverse party.
From then on, he shall have the same right and power
over such judgments and executions as his client
would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment
of his just fees and disbursements [Sec. 37, Rule 138,
RoC].
Requisites:
a. Attorney-client relationship;
b. The attorney has rendered services;

Page 48 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

c. A money judgment favorable to the client has A lawyer should avoid controversies with clients
been secured in the action; and concerning compensation so far as shall be
d. The attorney has a claim for attorney’s fees or compatible with self-respect and with his right to
advances statement of his claim has been receive a reasonable recompense for his services, and
recorded in the case with notice served upon the he should resort to law suits with clients only to
client and adverse party. prevent injustice, imposition or fraud. Lawyers thus
seldom, if ever, file judicial actions for the recovery of
Retaining lien Charging lien their fees unless righteous and well founded and
unless forced by the client's intolerable attitude
Nature because such lawsuits cannot fail to create the
Passive lien. It cannot Active lien. It can be impression, however, wrong it may be, that those
be actively enforced. It enforced by execution. instituting them are mercenaries [Agpalo (2004)].
is a general lien. It is a special lien.
Basis Judicial actions to recover attorney’s fees:
a. An appropriate motion or petition as an incident
Lawful possession of Securing of a favorable in the main action where he rendered legal
funds, papers, money judgment for services;
documents, property client b. A separate civil action for collection of attorney’s
belonging to client fees.
Coverage
QUANTUM MERUIT: “as much as a lawyer
Covers only funds, Covers all judgments deserves.”
papers, documents, for the payment of Essential requisite: Acceptance of the benefits by
and property in the money and executions one sought to be charged for services rendered under
lawful possession of issued in pursuance of circumstances as reasonably to notify him that lawyer
the attorney by reason such judgment expects compensation.
of his professional
employment When authorized:
Effectivity a. The agreement as to counsel fees is invalid for
some reason other than the illegality of the object
As soon as the lawyer As soon as the claim
of performance;
gets possession of the for attorney’s fees had
b. There is no express contract for attorney’s fees
funds, papers, been entered into the
agreed upon between the lawyer and the client;
documents, property records of the case
c. When although there is a formal contract of
Applicability attorney’s fees, the stipulated fees are found
May be exercised Generally, it is unconscionable or unreasonable by the court;
before judgment or exercisable only when d. When the contract for attorney’s fees is void due
execution, or regardless the attorney had to purely formal matters or defects of execution;
thereof already secured a e. When the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not
favorable judgment for able to finish the case to its conclusion;
his client f. When lawyer and client disregard the contract of
attorney’s fees;
Notice g. When there is a contract, but no stipulation as to
Client need not be Client and adverse attorney’s fees.
notified to make it party need to notified
effective to make it effective Quantum Meruit Guidelines
a. Time spent and extent of the services rendered.
4. Fees and Controversies with Clients A lawyer is justified in fixing higher fees when the
case is so complicated and requires more time
(Quantum Meruit) and efforts to finish it.
b. Nature and importance of subject matter. The
Rule 20.04. A lawyer shall avoid controversies more important the subject matter or the bigger
with clients concerning his compensation and shall value of the interest or property in litigation, the
resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, higher is the attorney’s fee.
injustice or fraud. c. Novelty and difficulty of questions involved.
When the questions in a case are novel and
difficult, greater efforts, deeper study, and

Page 49 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

research are bound to burn the lawyer’s time and NLRC, G.R. No.
stamina considering that there are no local 120592 (1997)].
precedents to rely upon.
d. Skill demanded of the lawyer. The totality of the h. Preservation of Client’s
lawyer’s experience provides him the skill and
competence admired in lawyers. Confidences
e. Loss of opportunity for other employment on
the part of the lawyer who accepts the retainer. It CANON 21. A lawyer shall preserve the
is only but fair that a client should compensate confidence and secrets of his client even after the
his lawyer for being deprived of the chance to attorney-client relation is terminated.
earn legal fees from others by reason of his
employment as his counsel. Note: asked 6 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex
f. Results secured. The importance to a client of Pareto (2017)].
his lawyer’s services depends upon the successful
outcome of his litigation. Purposes
g. Whether the fee is contingent. • Unless the client knows that his attorney cannot
h. Capacity of client to pay. be compelled to reveal what is told to him, he will
suppress what he thinks to be unfavorable and
A determination of all these factors would the advice which follows will be useless if not
indispensably require nothing less than a full-blown misleading
trial where private respondent can adduce evidence to • To encourage a client to make full disclosure to
establish its right to lawful attorney's fees and for his attorney and to place unrestricted confidence
petitioner to oppose or refute the same [Metrobank v. in him in matters affecting his rights or
CA, G.R. No. 86100 (1990)]. obligations [Agpalo (2004)].
The above rules apply in the case of a counsel de parte. It is the duty of an attorney to maintain inviolate the
A counsel de officio may not demand from the accused confidence, and at every peril to himself to preserve,
attorney’s fees even if he wins the case. However, the secrets of his client and to accept no
subject to availability of funds, the court may, in its compensation in connection with his client’s business
discretion, order an attorney employed as counsel de except from him or with his knowledge and approval
officio to be compensated in such sum as the court may [Sec. 20(e), Rule 138, RoC].
fix.
Imposition of Criminal Liability
5. Concepts of Attorney’s Fees 1. Upon any lawyer who, by any malicious breach
of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence
Extraordinary or ignorance, reveals any of the secrets of the
Ordinary concept
concept latter learned by him in his professional capacity.
An attorney’s fee is an 2. Upon a lawyer who, having undertaken the
indemnity for damages defense of a client or having received confidential
ordered by the court to information from said client in a case, undertakes
be paid by the losing the defense of the opposing party in the same
An attorney’s fee is the party to the prevailing case, without the consent of his first client. [Art.
reasonable party in litigation. The 209, RPC]
compensation paid to a basis of this is any of the
lawyer for the legal cases authorized by law The protection given to the client is perpetual and
services he has rendered and is payable not to the does not cease with the termination of the litigation,
to a client. Its basis of lawyer but to the client nor is it affected by the party’s ceasing to employ the
this compensation is – unless they have attorney and retaining another, or by any other change
the fact of employment agreed that the award of relation between them. It even survives the death
by the client. shall pertain to the of the client [Genato v. Silapan, supra.].
lawyer as additional
compensation or as part 1. Prohibited Disclosures and Use
thereof [Traders Royal
Bank Employees Rule 21.02. A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage
Union-Independent v. of his client, use information acquired in the
course of employment, nor shall he use the same

Page 50 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
to his own advantage or that of a third person,
unless the client with full knowledge of the
circumstances consents thereto.
Rule 21.03. A lawyer shall not, without the written
consent of his client, give information from his
files to an outside agency seeking such information
for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting,
data processing, or any similar purpose.
The work and product of a lawyer, such as his effort,
research, and thought, and the records of his client,
contained in his files are privileged matters. Neither
the lawyer nor, after his death, his heir or legal
representative may properly disclose the contents of
such file cabinet without client’s consent [Agpalo
(2004)].
Rule 21.05. A lawyer shall adopt such measures as
may be required to prevent those whose services
are utilized by him from disclosing or using
confidences or secrets of the client.
The client’s secrets which clerical aids of lawyers learn
of, in the performance of their services are covered by
privileged communication. It is the duty of lawyer to
ensure that this is being followed (e.g., execution of
confidentiality agreements) [Agpalo (2004)].
Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a client’s affairs even with
members of his family.
A lawyer must also preserve the confidences and
secrets of his clients outside the law office, including
his home. He should avoid committing calculated
indiscretion, that is, accidental revelation of secrets
obtained in his professional employment [Agpalo
(2004)].
Rule 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he has
been consulted about a particular case except to
avoid possible conflict of interest.
See also Rules 15.01 and 14.03
The privileged communication rule applies even
to prospective clients
The disclosure and the lawyer’s opinion thereon
create an attorney-client relationship, even though the
lawyer does not eventually accept the employment or
the prospective client did not thereafter actually
engage the lawyer. By the consultation, the lawyer
already learned of the secrets of prospective client.
Page 51 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
This rule, of course, is subject to exception of
representation of conflicting interests [Agpalo
(2004)].
2. Disclosure, When Allowed
Rule 21.01. A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidences or secrets of his client except:
a) When authorized by the client after
acquainting him of the consequences of the
disclosure;
b) When required by law;
c) When necessary to collect his fees or to
defend himself, his employees or associates
or by judicial action.
Rule 21.01(a) refers to a waiver by the client. Since the
attorney-client privilege against disclosure of the
client's confidence is intended primarily for the
client's protection, only the client as a rule can waive
the privilege.
Rule 21.01 (b) and (c) are for the protection of the
attorney’s rights. The privileged relation cannot be
used as a shield against wrongdoing nor can it be
employed as an excuse to deny a lawyer the right to
protect himself against abuse by the client or false
charges by third persons [Agpalo (2004)].
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.
The professional employment of a law firm is
equivalent to the retainer of the members thereof
even though only one of them is consulted;
conversely, the employment of one member of a law
firm is generally considered as employment of the law
firm [Agpalo (2004)].
i. Withdrawal of services
CANON 22. A lawyer shall withdraw his services
only for good cause and upon notice appropriate
in the circumstances.
Note: asked 9 times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex
Pareto (2017)].
An attorney-client relationship may be terminated by
the client, the lawyer, or by the court for reasons
beyond the parties’ control. The termination entails
certain duties on the part of the client and his lawyer.
[Agpalo (2004)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Causes of termination of attorney-client
relationship
1. Withdrawal of the lawyer
2. Death of the lawyer
3. Disbarment or suspension of the lawyer from the
practice of law;
4. Declaration of presumptive death of the lawyer;
5. Conviction of a crime and imprisonment of the
lawyer;
6. Discharge or dismissal of the lawyer by the client;
7. Appointment or election of a lawyer to a
government position which prohibits private
practice of law;
8. Death of the client;
9. Intervening incapacity or incompetence of the
client during pendency of case;
10. Full termination of the case.
General rule: The client has the right to discharge his
attorney at any time with or without just cause or even
against his consent.
Exceptions:
1. The client cannot deprive his counsel of right to
be paid services if the dismissal is without cause.
2. The client cannot discharge his counsel as an
excuse to secure repeated extensions of time.
3. Notice of discharge is required for both the court
and the adverse party [Agpalo (2004)].
A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or
substitute another in his place, but if the contract
between the client and the attorney has been reduced
to writing and the dismissal was without justifiable
cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client
the full compensation stipulated in the contract [Sec.
26, Rule 138, RoC].
Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his services in
any of the following cases:
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral
course of conduct in connection with the
matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue
conduct violative of these canons and rules;
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel
will not promote the best interest of the
client;
d) When the mental or physical condition of the
lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out
the employment effectively;
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the
fees for the services or fails to comply with
the retainer agreement;
f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to
public office; and
Page 52 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
g) Other similar cases.
A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or
special proceeding:
• With the written consent of his client filed in
court and copy thereof served upon the adverse
party; or
• 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, RoC].
General rule: The withdrawal in writing, with the
client’s conformity, does not require the approval of
the court to be effective.
Exception: 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 [Villasis v. CA, G.R. No. L-34369 (1974)].
Although a lawyer may withdraw his services when
the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the
services, withdrawal is unjustified if client did not
deliberately fail to pay [Montano v. IBP, A.C. No. No.
4215 (2001)].
Rule 22.02. A lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retaining lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property to
which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate
with his successor in the orderly transfer of the
matter, including all information necessary for the
proper handling of the matter.
Requirements of a valid substitution of counsel
1. The filing of a written application for substitution
2. The client’s written consent
3. The written consent of the attorney to be
substituted.
If the above written consent cannot be secured, a
proof of service of notice of such motion on the
attorney to be substituted [Agpalo (2004)].
At the discretion of the court, a lawyer, who has been
dismissed by a client, is allowed to intervene in a case
in order to protect the client’s rights [Obando v.
Figueras, G.R. No. 134854 (2000)].
The offensive attitude of a client is not an excuse to
just disappear and withdraw from a case without
notice to the court and to the client, especially when
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

attorney’s fees have already been paid [Chang v.

Hidalgo, A.C. No. 6934 (2016)].
C. Suspension, Disbarment,
Discipline of Lawyers
Rule 139-B as amended by B.M. No. 1645

1. Nature and Characteristics

of Disciplinary Actions
against Lawyers
a. Sui Generis
Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, i.e. they
belong to a class of their own.

They are neither purely civil nor purely criminal;

they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is
rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct
of its officers.

It is not meant to grant relief to a complainant but is

intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession
of its undesirable members in order to protect the
public and the courts [Tiong v Florendo, AC 4428,
(2011)].

They may be initiated by the Court motu proprio.

The Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to
account for his actuations as an officer of the Court
with the end in view of preserving the purity of the
legal profession and the proper and honest
administration of justice in the exercise of its
disciplinary powers.

Public interest is the primary objective, and the real

question for determination is whether or not the
attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges
as such [In Re: Almacen supra.; Itong v. Florendo, A.C.
No. 4428 (2011)].

Any interested person or the court motu proprio may

initiate disciplinary proceedings. The right to institute
disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor
is it necessary that the person complaining suffered
injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment
proceedings are matters of public interest and the only
basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof
of the charges [Figueras v. Jimenezsupra.].

b. Prescription
In Frias v. Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 6656 (2006), the
Supreme Court, citing Calo v. Degamo, A.C. No. 516
(1967) and Heck v. Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657

Page 53 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
(2004), declared that the defense of prescription does
not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers
for an administrative complaint against a member of
the bar does not prescribe.
Thus, Sec. 1, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission on Bar Discipline, which provided
for a prescription period of 2 years from the date of
the professional misconduct, was struck down for
being ultra vires.
However, in Isenhardt v. Real, A.C. No. 8254 (2012),
the Supreme Court ruled that “the rule [Sec. 1, Rule
VIII, Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar
Discipline] should be construed to mean two years
from the date of discovery of the professional
misconduct.”
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
1. Investigation is not interrupted or terminated by
reason of the desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the
charges, or failure of the complainant to
prosecute the same [par. 2, Sec. 5, Rule 139-B,
RoC].
The fact that the complainant manifested that he
is no longer interested to pursue, after settling
with the respondent-lawyer would not render the
case moot. The withdrawal of the complaints
cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction to
determine the veracity of the charges and to
discipline an erring respondent [Chan v. Olegario,
AM P-09-2714, (2010)]
2. Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and
confidential. However, the final order of the
Supreme Court shall be published like its
decisions in other cases. [Sec. 18, Rule 139-B,
RoC]
• Purposes:
o To enable the Court to make its
investigations free from any extraneous
influence or interference;
o To protect the personal and
professional reputation of attorneys and
judges from the baseless charges of
disgruntled, vindictive, and
irresponsible clients and litigants;
o To deter the press from publishing
administrative cases or portions thereof
without authority [Saludo, Jr. v. CA, G.R.
No. 121404 (2006)].
• Malicious and unauthorized publication or
verbatim reproduction of administrative
Page 54 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
complaints and their premature publication
constitutes contempt of court. [Saludo, Jr. v.
CA, supra].
• This is a privilege/right which may be
waived by the very lawyer in whom and for
the protection of whose personal and
professional reputation it is vested, pursuant
to the general principle that rights may be
waived unless the waiver is contrary to public
policy, among others” [Villalon v. IAC, G.R.
No. 73751 (1986)].
3. Laws dealing with double jeopardy, in pari delicto,
prescription or with procedure such as
verification of pleadings and prejudicial questions
have no application to disbarment proceedings
[Pimentel, Jr. v. Llorente, A.C. No. 4680 (2000)].
4. Because the proceedings are distinct from and
proceed independently of civil or criminal cases,
whatever has been decided in the disbarment case
cannot be a source of right that may be enforced
in another action. At best, such judgment may
only be given weight when introduced as
evidence, but in no case does it bind the court in
the civil action [Esquivias v. CA, G.R. No. 119714
(1997)].
5. The disbarment proceeding does not violate the
due process clause. The proceeding itself, when
instituted in proper cases, is due process of law
[In Re: Montagne, G.R. No. 1107 (1904)].
6. The rule in criminal cases that the penalty cannot
be imposed in the alternative applies in
administrative disciplinary cases, which also
involve punitive sanctions [Navarro v. Meneses III,
CBD A.C. No. 313 (1998)].
7. 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
2. Grounds
Sec. 27, Rule 138. Attorneys removed or
suspended by Supreme Court on what
grounds. — A member of the bar may be
removed or suspended from his office as attorney
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice,
or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of
a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
violation of the oath which he is required to take
before the admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so
to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Broadly speaking, the grounds for discipline of a
lawyer consist of those acts of misconduct committed
before and after his admission to the practice [Agpalo
(2004)].
Grounds for disbarment or suspension
a. Deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in
office
• Deceit is false representation of a matter of
fact whether by words or conduct, by false
or misleading allegations, or by concealment
of that which should have been disclosed
which deceives or is intended to deceive
another so that he shall act upon it to his
legal injury [Alcantara v. CA, G.R. No.
147259 (2003)].
• Malpractice ordinarily refers to any
malfeasance or dereliction of duty
committed by a lawyer. It consists of a failure
of an attorney to use such skill, prudence and
diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and
capacity commonly possess and exercise in
the performance of tasks which they
undertake, and when such failure
proximately causes damage, it gives rise to an
action in tort [Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. No.
1261 (1983)].
b. Grossly immoral conduct
c. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
• There must be a conviction. The mere
existence of criminal charges cannot be a
ground for suspension or disbarment
[Agpalo, 2004]
d. Any violation of the lawyer’s oath
e. Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court
f. Corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney
without authority so to do
from said client in a case, shall undertake the
defense of the opposing party in the same
case, without the consent of his first client
[Art. 209, RPC]
The grounds are not exclusive. The enumeration is
not to be taken as a limitation to the general power of
courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent
powers of the court over its officers cannot be
restricted [Quingwa v. Puno, A.C. No. 389 (1967)]. A
lawyer may be removed from office or suspended
from the practice of law by the Court on grounds not
found in the statute as when their acts are contrary to
honesty or good morals, or do not approximate the
highest degree of morality and integrity expected of
members of the bar [Sta. Maria v. Tuazon, AC 396,
(1964)].
Misconduct in private capacity
General rule: The Court will not assume jurisdiction to
discipline one of its members for misconduct alleged
to be committed in his private capacity
Exception: An attorney will be removed not only for
malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but also
for gross misconduct not connected with his
professional duties, which show him to be unfit for
the office and unworthy of the privileges which his
license and the law confer upon him [Piatt v Abordo,
supra.].
Misconduct before admission to the bar
A lawyer may be disbarred from misrepresentation or
false pretense relative to the requirements for
admission to practice. The fact that he lacked any of
the qualifications for membership at the time he took
his oath, is a ground for his disbarment [In Re: Diao,
A.C. No. 244, (1963)].

Other statutory grounds

a. Purchase by a lawyer of his client’s property in
litigation [Art. 1491, NCC; Bautista v. Gonzales,
A.M. No. 1625 (1990)].
b. Administrative and criminal sanctions may be
imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor
who:
1. By malicious breach of professional duty or
of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall
prejudice his client, or reveal any of the
secrets of the latter learned by him in his
professional capacity [Art. 208, RPC];
2. Having undertaken the defense of a client or
having received confidential information

Page 55 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

The inherent power to discipline members of the

3. Proceedings
Institution by any of the following:
1. The Supreme Court, motu propio
2. The IBP Board of Governors, motu propio, or
upon referral by a) the Supreme Court, b)
Chapter Board of Officers, or c) at the
instance of any person
3. Upon verified complaint by any person
 Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution, only this Court
6 copies of the verified complaint shall be filed
with the Secretary of the IBP or Secretary of any of
its chapter and shall be forwarded to the IBP Board
of Governors.
The complaint must allege specific acts which
constitute particular breaches of the law, the CPR,
or ethics. Otherwise, the complaint must fail.
 recommendations, its determinations and conclusions
Investigation by the National Grievance
Investigators within 3 months.
The respondent has the opportunity to defend
himself, but if he fails to appears, the investigation
will proceed ex parte.
 Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
Submission of investigative report to the IBP
Board of Governors.
 may be disciplined by the Supreme Court without
The IBP Board of Governors reviews and decides
within 30 days.
The Board then transmits its decision to the
Supreme Court within 10 days from resolution.
 AMENDMENT OF RULE 139-B, dated October
The Supreme Court reviews the decision of the
IBP Board of Governors and renders the final
decision for disbarment/suspension/dismissal.
All charges against the following shall be filed with the
Supreme Court:
a. Justices of the Court of Appeals;
b. Justices of the Sandiganbayan;
c. Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals; and
d. Judges of lower courts [Sec. 1 (2), Rule 139-B,
RoC].
Charges filed against justices and judges before the
IBP shall immediately be forwarded to the Supreme
Court for disposition and adjudication, including
those filed prior to their appointment in the Judiciary
[Sec. 1 (2), Rule 139-B].
bar belong to the Supreme Court, not the IBP.
The power to disbar a lawyer is exclusive to it.
Thus, no decision of the IBP is final. Such decisions
are automatically elevated to the Court for review
[Maronilla v.Jorda, AC 6973, (2007)].
The oral instruction to return the P80,000 given to
respondent in the IBP’s August 18, 2004 hearing was
not a juridically binding order. The competence of the
IBP is only recommendatory. Under Article VIll,
has the power to actually rule on disciplinary cases of
lawyers, and to impose appropriate penalties. Rule
139-B merely delegates investigatory functions to the
IBP. With the exercise of its delegated investigatory
power, the IBP refers proposed actions to this Court.
Recognizing its limited competence in disciplinary
cases impels a concomitant recognition that, pending
favorable action by this Court on its
are only provisional. Therefore, rulings on disciplinary
cases attain finality and are enforceable only upon this
Court's own determination that they must be imposed
[Anita Santos Murray v. Atty. Felicito J. Cervantes, A.C.
No. 5408 (2017)]
Where the facts of record sufficiently provide basis
for the determination of administrative liability, he
further investigation. A trial-type hearing is not
necessary, the respondent having been fully heard in
his pleadings [Agpalo, 2004].
In BAR MATTER N0. 1645 (RE:
13, 2015, the Supreme Court issued new rules
governing administrative disciplinary cases against
lawyers:
• Investigation by the Solicitor General is no
longer required.
• Only the Supreme Court can dismiss cases
against lawyers; it cannot be delegated to the IBP.
Thus, the provision in Rule 139-B that the Board
of Governors can dismiss cases has been
repealed.
• The motive of the complainant and his/her
in/action after the filing of the verified complaint
is not essential to the proceedings.

Page 56 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
4. Recoverable amounts;
intrinsically linked to
professional engagement
General Rule: In disciplinary proceedings against
lawyers, the SC cannot order the guilty lawyer to pay
the amount he owes to the complainant because the
Court's only concern is the determination of whether
the attorney is still fit to be allowed to continue as a
member of the Bar. Payment from a lawyer is a relief
that can be prayed for in a civil action. It is not a
matter that may be resolved in a disciplinary
proceeding [The Flight Shop, Inc. v. Atty. Fernando T.
Barican, A.C. No. 9950 (2014)].
Exception: When a lawyer receives money from a client
for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render
an accounting to the client showing that the money
was spent for the intended purpose. Consequently, if
the lawyer does not use the money for the intended
purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the
money to the client. Thus, in a 2014 disbarment case
where the lawyer received advances from his client to
defray the expenses connected with a case he was
handling, and where the lawyer failed to account for
these sums, the SC directed the lawyer to return the
amounts given by his client in addition to imposing
the penalty of disbarment upon him [Foster v. Atty.
Jaime V. Agtang, A.C. No. 10579 (2014)].
5. Other Matters
a. Discipline of Filipino Lawyers
Practicing Abroad
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the
Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinary agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he
has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for
his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such
action includes any of the acts enumerated as grounds
in Rule 138 [In re: Maquera, B.M. No. 793 (2004)].
A foreign court’s judgment ordering the suspension
of a Filipino lawyer in that foreign country does not
automatically result in his suspension or disbarment
in the Philippines. The judgment, resolution or order
of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be
prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or
suspension. Due process demands that he be given
the opportunity to defend himself and present
Page 57 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
testimonial or documentary evidence on the matter,
in an investigation conducted in accordance with Rule
139-B. [In re: Maquera, supra)].
b. Discipline of Lawyers in
Government
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
General rule: A lawyer who holds a government office
may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a
government official.
Exception: If that misconduct as a government official
is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a
lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar on such ground.
Considering that both respondents are public officers
being charged for actions, which are allegedly unfair
and discriminatory, involving their official functions
during their tenure, the present case should be
resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman as the
appropriate government agency. Indeed, the IBP
has no jurisdiction over government lawyers who
are charged with administrative offenses
involving their official duties. For such acts,
government lawyers fall under the disciplinary
authority of either their superior or the Ombudsman.
Moreover, an anomalous situation will arise if the IBP
asserts jurisdiction and decides against a government
lawyer, while the disciplinary authority finds in favor
of the government lawyer [Spouses Buffe vs. Secretary
Raul M. Gonzalez, et al., A.C. No. 8168, 2016)].
c. Presumption of Innocence,
Burden of Proof, Quantum of
Proof
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension
proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the
complainant. The Court exercises its disciplinary
power only if the complainant establishes that
imposition of the harsh penalty is warranted. As a
rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that
he is innocent of the charges made against him until
the contrary is proved. An attorney is further
presumed as an officer of the Court to have
performed his duties in accordance with his oath
[Joven and Reynaldo C. Rasing v. Cruz and Magsalin, A.C.
No. 7686 (2013)].
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
The proof required is Substantial Evidence.
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. As case
law elucidates, disciplinary proceedings against
lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely
criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a
suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into
the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended
to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal
prosecution [Reyes v. Nieva, A.C. No. 8560 (2016)]
d. Disciplinary Measures
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
1. Warning, an act or fact of putting one on his
guard against an impending danger, evil
consequences or penalties.
2. Admonition, a gentle or friendly reproof, mild
rebuke, warning or reminder, counseling, on a
fault, error or oversight; an expression of
authoritative advice.
3. Reprimand, a public and formal censure or severe
reproof, administered to a person in fault by his
superior officer or a body to which he be-longs.
It is imposed on a minor infraction of the
lawyer’s duty to the court or client
4. Suspension, a temporary withholding of a
lawyer’s right to practice his profession as a
lawyer for:
a. A definite period; or
b. An indefinite period, which amounts to
qualified disbarment, in which case, lawyer
determines for himself for how long or how
short his suspension shall last by proving to
court that he is once again fit to resume
practice of law.
5. Censure, an official reprimand.
6. Disbarment, the act of the Philippine Supreme
Court in withdrawing from an attorney the
privilege to practice law and striking out the name
of the lawyer from the roll of attorneys.
7. Interim suspension, the temporary suspension of
a lawyer from the practice of law pending
imposition of final discipline. It includes:
a. Suspension upon conviction of a serious
crime.
b. Suspension when the lawyer’s continuing
conduct is likely to cause immediate and
serious injury to a client or public.
8. Probation, a sanction that allows a lawyer to
practice law under specified conditions.
Other sanctions and remedies
Page 58 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
1. Restitution
2. Assessment of costs
3. Limitation upon practice
4. Appointment of a receiver
5. Requirement that a lawyer take the bar
examination or professional responsibility
examination
6. Requirement that a lawyer attend continuing
education courses
7. Other requirements that the Supreme Court or
disciplinary board deems consistent with the
purposes of sanctions.
e. Mitigating and Aggravating
Circumstances
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
Mitigating Circumstances
1. Absence of a prior disciplinary record
2. Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive
3. Personal or emotional problems
4. Timely good faith effort to make restitution or to
rectify consequences of misconduct
5. Full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or
cooperative attitude toward proceedings
6. Inexperience in the practice of law
7. Character or reputation
8. Physical or mental disability or impairment;
9. Delay in disciplinary proceedings
10. Interim rehabilitation
11. Imposition of other penalties or sanctions
12. Remorse
13. Remoteness of prior offenses
14. Others:
a. Good Faith
b. Want of intention to commit a wrong
c. Lack of material damage to the complaining
witness
d. Desistance of complainant
e. Error in judgment
f. Honest and efficient service in various
government positions
g. Ready admission of the infraction coupled
with explanation and plea for forgiveness
h. Clean record of professional service in the
past
i. Rendered professional services out of pure
generosity
j. Punished in another capacity for a
misconduct for which he now faces a
disbarment proceeding
k. Old Age & long membership (BUT this may
also be an aggravation depending on the
circumstance)
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Aggravating Circumstances Exception: When as a consequence of the withdrawal

1. Prior disciplinary offenses or desistance, no evidence is adduced to prove the
2. Dishonest or selfish motive charges [Banaag v. Salindong, A.C. No. 1563 (1984)].
3. A pattern of misconduct
4. Multiple offenses;
5. Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with
rules or orders of the disciplinary agency;
6. Submission of false evidence, false statements, or
other deceptive practices during the disciplinary
process;
7. Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of
conduct;
8. Vulnerability of victim;
9. Substantial experience in the practice of law
10. Indifference to making restitution
11. Others:
a. Abuse of authority or of attorney-client
relationship
b. Sexual intercourse with a relative
c. Making the institution of marriage a mockery
d. Charge of gross immorality
e. Previous punishment as member of the bar
f. Defraud upon the government
g. Use of knowledge or information, acquired
in the course of a previous professional
employment, against a former client

f. Effect of Executive Pardon

Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus

Conditional pardon: disbarment case will not be

dismissed on such basis

Absolute pardon granted before conviction:

disbarment case will be dismissed

Absolute pardon granted before conviction: No

automatic reinstatement to the bar. It must be shown
by evidence aside from absolute pardon that he is now
a person of good moral character and fit and proper
person to practice law.

g. Effect of Compromise
Agreements
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus

General rule: The compromise agreement between the

complainant and the lawyer, or the fact that the
complainant already forgave the latter, does not
necessarily warrant the dismissal of the administrative
case [Tiama v. Ocampo, A.C. No. 2285, (1991)].

Page 59 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
D. Readmission to the Bar
The Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to
reinstate a disbarred or indefinitely suspended lawyer,
stemming from its constitutional prerogative to issue
rules and regulations concerning admission to the
practice of law [Agpalo, 2004].
1. Lawyers Who Have Been
Suspended
Guidelines in the lifting an order of suspension
a. Upon expiration of the period of suspension,
respondent shall file a sworn statement with the
court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant,
stating therein that he or she has desisted from
the practice of law and has not appeared in any
court during the period of his or her suspension;
b. Copies of the sworn statement furnished to the
local chapter of the IBP and to the executive
judge of the courts where the respondent has
pending cases handled by him or her, and/or
where he or she has appeared as counsel;
c. The sworn statement shall be considered as proof
of respondent’s compliance with the order of
suspension
d. Any finding or report contrary to the statements
made by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground
for the imposition of a more severe punishment
or disbarment, as may be warranted [Maniago v.
De Dios, A.C. No. 7472 (2010)].
2. Lawyers Who Have Been
Disbarred
Considerations for Reinstatement
• The applicant’s character and standing prior to
disbarment
• The nature or character of the misconduct for
which he is disbarred
• His conduct subsequent to disbarment [Cui v.
Cui, G.R. No. L-18727 (1964)]
• His efficient government service [In re: Adriatico,
G.R. No. L-2532 (1910)];
• The time that has elapsed between disbarment
and the application for reinstatement and the
circumstances that he has been sufficiently
punished and disciplined [Prudential Bank v.
Benjamin Grecia, A.C. No. 2756 (1986)]
• Applicant’s appreciation of significance of his
dereliction and his assurance that he now
possesses the requisite probity and integrity
Page 60 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
• Favorable endorsement of the IBP and local
government officials and citizens of his
community, pleas of his loved ones [Yap Tan v.
Sabandal, B.M. No. 44 (1989)]
The sole objective is to determine whether or not the
applicant has satisfied and convinced the court by
positive evidence that the effort he has made toward
the rehabilitation of his character has been successful
[In re: Rusuina, A.C. No. 270 (1974)].
The quantum of evidence necessary for reinstatement
is the same as that for admission to the bar, except
that the court, when circumstances so warrant, may
require an applicant to present additional proof of his
qualifications [Cui v. Cui, supra.].
The Supreme Court may also require special
conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant, in addition
to the required rehabilitation, including enrolling in
and passing the required fourth year review classes in
a recognized law school [Agpalo, 2004].
Prior to actual reinstatement, the applicant will be
required to take anew the lawyer’s oath and sign once
again the roll of attorneys after paying the requisite
fees [Funa].
Guidelines in resolving requests for judicial
clemency of disbarred lawyers
a. There must be proof of remorse and
reformation. These include testimonials of
credible institutions and personalities;
b. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the
imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reformation;
c. 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;
d. There must be a showing of promise (e.g.,
intellectual aptitude, contribution to legal
scholarship), and potential for public service;
e. Other relevant factors to justify clemency [Re:
Letter of Judge Diaz, A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC (2007)].
Effect of Reinstatement
a. Lawyer must comply with the conditions
imposed upon readmission
b. The lawyer’s moral rehabilitation and mental
fitness to practice law is recognized
c. The lawyer shall be subject to the same law, rules
and regulations as those applicable to any other
lawyer
U.P. LAW BOC
3. Lawyers who have been
Repatriated
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
Lawyers who reacquire their Philippine citizenship
should apply to the Supreme Court for license or
permit to practice their profession [Sec. 5(4), R.A. No.
9225].
See also Reacquisition of the Privilege to Practice
Law in the Philippines under R.A. No. 9225 or the
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of
2003 above.
LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
E. Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE)
1. Purpose
Continuing legal education is required of members of
the IBP to:
a. Ensure that throughout their career, they keep
abreast with law and jurisprudence;
b. Maintain the ethics of the profession; and
c. Enhance the standards of the practice of law [Sec.
1, Rule 1, B.M. No. 850].
2. Requirements
Members of the IBP shall complete, every three years,
at least 36 hours of continuing legal education
activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the
36 hours:
# of
Subject
Hours
Legal Ethics 6 hours
Trial and Pre-trial Skills 4 hours
Alternative Dispute Resolution 5 hours
Updates on substantive and procedural 9 hours
laws and Jurisprudence
International law and International 2 hours
Conventions
Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy 4 hours
Other MCLE prescribed subjects 6 hours
[Sec. 2, Rule 2, B.M. No. 850]
Participatory Legal Education [Sec. 2, Rule 5, B.M.
No. 850]
a. Attending approved education activities like
seminars, conferences, conventions, symposia,
in-house education programs, workshops,
dialogues or round table discussion
b. Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned
panelist, reactor, commentator, resource speaker,
moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved
education activities
c. Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar
review class.
Non-Participatory Legal Education [Sec. 3, Rule
5, B.M. No. 850]
a. Preparing, as an author or co-author, written
materials published or accepted for publication,
e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or
book review which contribute to the legal
education of the author member, which were not
Page 61 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
prepared in the ordinary course of the member’s
practice or employment;
b. Editing a law book, law journal or legal
newsletter.
c. Other activities, such as rendering mandatory
legal aid services pursuant to Sec. 8, B.M. No.
2012, may be credited as MCLE activities.
3. Compliance
Lawyers, not otherwise exempted, are required to
complete their MCLE requirements every three (3)
years and within the compliance periods set by the
Rules.
The IBP members covered by the requirement are
divided into three compliance groups:
a. Compliance Group 1 consists of members in the
National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila;
b. Compliance Group 2 consists members in Luzon
outside NCR; and
c. Compliance Group 3 consists of members in
Visayas and Mindanao [Sec. 2, Rule 3, B.M. No.
850].
The initial compliance period shall begin not later
than 3 months from the constitution of the MCLE
Committee. The compliance period shall be for 36
months and shall begin the day after the end of the
previous compliance period [Sec. 1, Rule 3, B.M. No.
850].
For those admitted or readmitted after the
establishment of the program, they will be
permanently assigned to the appropriate compliance
group based on their chapter membership on the date
of admission or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or
readmission shall begin on the first day of the month
of admission or readmission and shall end on the
same day as that of all other members in the same
compliance group.
However:
• Where 4 months or less remain of the initial
compliance period after admission or
readmission, the member is not required to
comply with the program requirement for the
initial compliance;
• Where more than 4 months remain of the initial
compliance period after admission or
readmission, the member shall be required to
complete a number of hours of approved
continuing legal education activities equal to the
number of months remaining in the compliance
Page 62 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
period in which the member is admitted or
readmitted. Such member shall be required to
complete a number of hours of education in legal
ethics in proportion to the number of months
remaining in the compliance period. Fractions of
hours shall be rounded up to the next whole
number [Sec. 3, Rule 3, BM 850].
Forms of non-compliance
a. Failure to complete the educational requirement
within the compliance period
b. Failure to provide attestation of compliance or
exemption
c. Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of
compliance
d. Failure to satisfy the education requirement and
furnish evidence of non-compliance within 60
days from receipt of non-compliance notice
e. Failure to pay the non-compliance fee within the
prescribed period
f. Any other act or omission analogous to any of
the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade
compliance with the MCLE requirement [Sec. 1,
Rule 12, B.M. No. 850].
The non-compliant member shall receive a Notice of
Non-Compliance and shall be given 60 days from
receipt of notification to file a response clarifying the
deficiency or showing compliance.
4. Exemptions
Exempted members from the MCLE
a. The President and the Vice President of the
Philippines, and the Secretaries and
Undersecretaries of Executives Departments;
b. Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives;
c. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members
of the judiciary, incumbent members of the
Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court
lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial
Academy program of continuing judicial
education;
d. The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor
and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of
Justice;
e. The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor
General;
f. The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy
and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
g. The Chairmen and Members of the
Constitutional Commissions;
h. The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy
Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and the
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
Special Prosecutor of the Office of the
Ombudsman;
i. Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-
judicial functions;
j. Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors
of law who have teaching experience for at least
ten years accredited law schools;
k. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members
of the Corps of Professors and Professorial
Lectures of the Philippine Judicial Academy;
l. Governors and Mayors.
m. Those who are not in law practice, private or
public; and
n. Those who have retired from law practice with
the approval of the IBP Board of Governors
o. Those granted exemption for good cause in
accordance with Sec 3, Rule 7 of the MCLE Rules
[Sec. 1 and 2, Rule 7, B.M. No. 850]
A member may file a verified request setting forth
good cause for exemption (e.g., physical disability,
illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise
in law) from compliance with or modification of any
of the requirements, including an extension of time
for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be
established by the MCLE Committee [Sec. 3, Rule 7,
B.M. No. 850].
Applications for exemption from or modification of
the MCLE requirement shall be under oath and
supported by documents [Sec. 5, Rule 7, B.M. No.
850].
When a member ceases to be exempt, the compliance
period begins on the first day of the month in which
he ceases to be exempt and shall end on the same day
as that of all other members in the same Compliance
Group [Sec. 4, Rule 7, B.M. No. 850].
5. Sanctions
a. A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-
compliance at the end of the compliance period
shall pay a non-compliance fee.
b. Any member who fails to satisfactorily comply
shall be listed as a delinquent member by the IBP
Board of Governors upon the recommendation
of the MCLE Committee, in which case, Rule
139-A, Rules of Court, governing the IBP, shall
apply [Sec. 1 and 2, Rule 13, B.M. No. 850]
Membership fee shall continue to accrue at the
active rate against a member during the period
he/she is listed as a delinquent member [Sec. 3,
Rule 13, B.M. No. 850].
Page 63 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
The delinquent member shall not be permitted to
practice law until such time as adequate proof of
compliance is received by the MCLE Committee. [Sec
7, Rule 13, B.M. No. 850].
When the member provides proof of compliance with
the MCLE requirement, including the payment of the
non-compliance fee, the involuntary listing as a
delinquent member shall be terminated and the
member shall be reinstated [Rule 14, B.M. No. 850].
Under B.M. No. 1922 (2008), practicing members of
the bar are required to indicate in all pleadings filed
before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number
and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be
applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance
period. BUT this has been amended, pursuant to
B.M. No. 850, as amended (Dated Feb. 15, 2015.
Effective Mar. 1, 2015):
“xxx The Court Resolved to REQUIRE all members
of the IBP to file a written entry of appearance
indicating their MCLE exemption or compliance
number for the current or immediately preceding
compliance period and date of issuance thereof
before appearing as counsel or engaging in oral
argument in open court or before a quasi-judicial
body. However, counsels who affixed their signatures
in their pleadings and indicated their MCLE
exemption or compliance number in their pleadings
need not file a separate entry of appearance.
Henceforth, all counsels, including partners of law
firms whose names appear in the said pleadings, shall
also indicate their MCLE exemption or compliance
number.”
Pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated January
14, 2014, the phrase “failure to disclose the required
information would cause the dismissal of the case and
the expunction of the pleadings from the records” in
B.M. No. 1922 (2008) is repealed and amended to
read, “failure to disclose the required information
would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty
and disciplinary action.”
Penalties for non-disclosure of compliance or
exemption number in the pleadings:
a. The lawyer shall be imposed a fine of P2,000,
P3,000 and 4,000 for the first to third offense
successively.
b. In addition to the fine, counsel may be listed as a
delinquent member of the Bar
c. The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged
from the case and the client shall be allowed to
secure the services of a new counsel with the right
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

to demand the return of fees already paid to the

lawyer. [B.M. No. 1922]
F. Notarial Practice
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC is referred to as the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice [hereinafter, Notarial Rules]. In
2008, it was amended by the Court en banc via 2
resolutions: Resolution dated February 12, 2008 and
Resolution dated February 19, 2008.

A Notary Public is one appointed by the Court

whose duty is to attest to the genuineness of any deed
or writing in order to render them available as
evidence of the facts stated therein and who is
authorized by statute to administer various oaths
[E.O. 292].

1. Qualifications of a Notary
Public
a. Must be a Filipino citizen;
b. Must be over 21 years old;
c. Must be a resident of the Philippines for at least
1 year;
d. Must maintain a regular place of work or business
in the city or province where commission is to be
issued;
e. Must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good
standing, with clearances from: The Office of the
Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court, and the
IBP; and
f. Must not have been convicted in the first instance
of any crime involving moral turpitude [Sec. 1,
Rule III].

2. Term of Office of a Notary

Public
Sec. 11, Rule III. A person commissioned as
notary public may perform notarial acts in any
place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning court for a period of 2 years
commencing the first day of January of the
year in which the commissioning is made,
unless earlier revoked or the notary public has
resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

Sec. 13, Rule III. 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.

Page 64 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

3. Powers and Limitations executed competent

as a free evidence of
and identity as
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and
voluntary defined by the
routinary act. It converts a private document into a
act Notarial Rules
public instrument, making it admissible as evidence
without the necessity of preliminary proof of its Avows
authenticity and due execution [Sicat v. Ariola, A.C. under
No. 5864 (2005)]. Oath or penalty of
Affirmation law to the
Lawyers commissioned as notaries are mandated to whole
subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to their truth
office, such duties being dictated by public policy Signs the
impressed with public interest [Mondejar v. Rubia, A.C. instrument
No. 5907 and 5942 (2006)]. and takes
an oath or
affirmation
a. Powers Jurat
before the
notary
A notary public can perform the following public as to
notarial acts: such
1. Acknowledgments; instrument
2. Oaths and affirmations; Signs the
3. Jurats; instrument
4. Signature witnessings; in the
5. Copy certifications; and Signature
presence
6. Any other act authorized by the Notarial Rules Witnessing
of the
[Sec. 1(a), Rule IV]. notary
a. Certifying the affixing of signature by thumb public
or other mark on an instrument or document
presented for notarization [Sec. 1(b), Rule Copy Certification
IV] A notarial act in which a notary public:
b. Signing on behalf of a person who is 1. Is presented with an instrument or document
physically unable to sign or make a mark on that is neither a vital record, a public record, nor
an instrument or document [Sec. 1(c), Rule publicly recordable;
IV]. 2. Copies or supervises the copying of the
instrument or document;
Basic Common 3. Compares the instrument or document with the
Definition requirements copy; and
Represents 1. Appears in 4. Determines that the copy is accurate and
to the person before complete [Sec. 4, Rule II]
notary the notary
public that public and Certifying the Affixing of Signature by Thumb/
the presents an Other Mark
signature integrally A notary public is authorized if:
was complete 1. The thumb or other mark is affixed in the
voluntarily instrument or presence of the notary public and of two (2)
affixed for document disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the
Acknowledgment the instrument or document;
purposes 2. Is attested 2. Both witnesses sign their own names in addition
stated in to be to the thumb or other mark;
the personally 3. The notary public writes below the thumb or
instrument known to the other mark: “Thumb or Other Mark affixed by
AND notary public (name of signatory by mark) in the presence of
declares or identified (names and addresses of witnesses) and
the by the notary undersigned notary public;” and
instrument public
was through

Page 65 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
4. The notary public notarizes the signature by
thumb or other mark through an
acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing.
[Sec. 1(b), Rule IV,]
Signing on Behalf of a Person Who is Physically
Unable to Sign or Make a Mark
A notary public is authorized if:
1. The notary public is directed by the person
unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his
behalf;
2. The signature of the notary public is affixed in
the presence of two disinterested and unaffected
witnesses to the instrument or document;
3. Both witnesses sign their own names;
4. The notary public writes below his signature:
“Signature affixed by notary in presence of
(names and addresses of person and two
witnesses);” and
5. The notary public notarizes his signature by
acknowledgment or jurat [Sec. 1(c), Rule IV].
“Physically unable to sign” does not include the
situation where a person is physically unable to sign
because he is in another place.
b. Limitations
1. Relating to Notarial Acts
A notary public is bereft of power to perform any
notarial act outside his regular place of work or
business; provided, however, that on certain
exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may
be performed at the request of the parties in the
following sites located within his territorial
jurisdiction:
a. Public offices, convention halls, and similar
places where oaths of office may be administered;
b. Public function areas in hotels and similar places
for the signing of instruments or documents
requiring notarization;
c. Hospitals and other medical institutions where a
party to an instrument or document is confined
for treatment; and
d. Any place where a party to an instrument or
document requiring notarization is under
detention [Sec. 2(a), Rule IV]
A notary public is disqualified from performing a
notarial act if he:
a. Is a party to the instrument or document that is
to be notarized;
b. Will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any
commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest,
Page 66 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
cash, property, or other consideration, except as
provided by the Notarial Rules and by law; or
c. Is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor,
descendant, or relative by affinity or
consanguinity of the principal within the fourth
civil degree [Sec. 3, Rule IV]
• Violation of this may disqualify a person
from being a notary public but is insufficient
ground for disbarment [Jandoquile v. Revilla,
A.C. No. 9514, (2013)].
A person shall not perform a notarial act:
a. If the person involved as signatory to the
instrument or document:
1. Is not in the notary's presence personally at
the time of the notarization; and
2. Is not personally known to the notary public
or otherwise identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as
defined by the Notarial Rules [Sec. 2(b), Rule
IV].
b. If the notary knows or has good reason to believe
that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or
immoral;
c. If the signatory shows a demeanor which
engenders in the mind of the notary public
reasonable doubt as to the former's knowledge of
the consequences of the transaction requiring a
notarial act; and
d. If in the notary's judgment, the signatory is not
acting of his or her own free will [Sec. 4, Rule IV]
A notary public shall not:
a. Execute a certificate containing information
known or believed by the notary to be false;
b. Affix an official signature or seal on a notarial
certificate that is incomplete [Sec. 5, Rule IV]
c. Notarize a blank or incomplete instrument or
document; or
d. Notarize an instrument or document without
appropriate notarial certification [Sec. 6, Rule IV]
Relating to Notarial Register
In the notary's presence, any person may inspect an
entry in the notarial register, during regular business
hours, provided;
a. The person's identity is personally known to the
notary public or proven through competent
evidence of identity as defined in the Notarial
Rules;
b. The person affixes a signature and thumb or
other mark or other recognized identifier, in the
notarial register in a separate, dated entry;
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
c. The person specifies the month, year, type of
instrument or document, and name of the
principal in the notarial act or acts sought; and
d. The person is shown only the entry or entries
specified by him
The notarial register may be examined by a law
enforcement officer in the course of an official
investigation or by virtue of a court order.
If the notary public has a reasonable ground to believe
that a person has a criminal intent or wrongful motive
in requesting information from the notarial register,
the notary shall deny access to any entry or entries
therein [Sec. 4, Rule VI]
4. Notarial Register
A notarial register refers to a permanently bound
book with numbered pages containing a
chronological record of notarial acts performed by a
notary public [Sec. 5, Rule II]
Rule VI, Secs. I and 2 of the Notarial Rules require a
notary public to keep and maintain a Notarial Register
wherein he will record his every notarial act. His
failure to make the proper entry or entries in his
notarial register concerning his notarial acts is a
ground for revocation of his notarial commission
[Agadan, et al. v. Kilaan, A.C. No. No. 9385 (2013)].
a. Entries
By notary public
The following information must be recorded in the
register at the time of notarization:
1. The entry number and page number;
2. The date and time of day of the notarial act;
3. The type of notarial act;
4. The title or description of the instrument,
document or proceeding;
5. The name and address of each principal;
6. The competent evidence of identity as defined by
the Notarial Rules if the signatory is not
personally known to the notary;
7. The name and address of each credible witness
swearing to or affirming the person's identity;
8. The fee charged for the notarial act;
9. The address where the notarization was
performed if not in the notary's regular place of
work or business;
10. Any other circumstance the notary public may
deem of significance or relevance;
11. Reasons and circumstances for not completing a
notarial act;
Page 67 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
12. Circumstances of any request to inspect or copy
an entry in the notarial register, including the:
a. Requester’s name;
b. Requester’s address;
c. Requester’s signature;
d. Requester’s thumbmark or other recognized
identifier;
e. Evidence of requester’s identity; and
f. Reasons for refusal to allow inspection or
copying of a journal entry;
13. Brief description of the substance of a contract
presented for notarization;
14. In case of a protest of any draft, bill of exchange
or promissory note, a full and true record of all
proceedings in relation thereto and shall note
therein:
a. Whether the demand for the sum of money
was made, by whom, when and where;
b. Whether he presented such draft, bill or
note;
c. Whether notices were given, to whom and in
what manner; where the same was made,
when and to whom and where directed; and
d. Of every other fact touching the same [Sec.
2, Rule VI]
By Other Persons
At the time of notarization, the notary's notarial
register shall be signed or a thumb or other mark
affixed by each:
1. Principal;
2. Credible witness swearing or affirming to the
identity of a principal; and
3. Witness to a signature by thumb or other
mark, or to a signing by the notary public on
behalf of a person physically unable to sign
[Sec. 3, Rule VI].
b. Closing
At the end of each week, the notary public shall certify
in his notarial register the number of instruments or
documents executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or
protested before him; or if none, this certificate shall
show this fact. [Sec. 2(g), Rule VI]
c. Submission
A certified copy of each month’s entries and a
duplicate original copy of any instrument
acknowledged before the notary public shall, within
the first ten days of the month following, be
forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under
the responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry
to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies
herein required. [Sec. 2(h), Rule VI]
5. Jurisdiction of Notary Public
and Place of Notarization
A person commissioned as notary public may
perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the commissioning court [Sec. 11, Rule
III].
The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall
be co-extensive with the province. The jursidiction of
a notary public in the City of Manila shall be co-
extensive with said city. No notary shall possess
authority to do any act beyond the limits of his
jurisdiction [Sec 274, Art II, Revised Administrative
Code].
General rule: A notary public shall not perform a
notarial act outside his regular place of work or
business
Exception: On certain exceptional occasions or
situations, a notarial act may be performed at the
request of the parties on the following sites located
within his territorial jurisdiction
See also Limitations relating to Notarial Acts above.
6. Competent Evidence of
Identity
A notary public can identify an individual based on
either of the following sources:
a. At least one current identification document
issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual such
as but not limited to: Passport, Driver's License,
Professional Regulation Commission ID, NBI
clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID,
Barangay certification, GSIS e-card, SSS card,
PhilHealth card, senior citizen card, OWWA ID,
OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien’s certificate of
registration/immigrant certificate of registration,
government office ID, certification from the
NCWDO, DSWD certification; etc.
Note: A Community Tax Certificate has been
deleted as among the accepted proof of identity
because of its inherent unreliability [Advance Paper
Corporation v. Arma Traders Corporation, G.R. No.
176897 (2013)].
Page 68 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
b. The oath or affirmation of:
1. One credible witness not privy to the
instrument, document or transaction who is
personally known to the notary public and
who personally knows the individual; or
2. Two credible witnesses neither of whom is
privy to the instrument, document or trans-
action who each personally knows the
individual and shows to the notary public
documentary identification [Sec. 12, Rule II,
as amended by Resolution dated Feb. 19,
2008].
7. Sanctions
a. Administrative Sanctions
The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate
administrative proceedings against a notary public and
impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on
the grounds for revocation of commission mentioned
[Sec. 1(d), Rule XI]
An order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall be
immediately executory pending appeal, unless
otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.
The names of notaries who have been
administratively sanctioned will be posted in a
conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive
Judge and the Clerk of Court [Sec. 3, Rule XI]
b. Criminal sanctions
The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of
any person who:
1. Knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a
notary public;
2. Knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys
the seal, notarial register, or official records of a
notary public; and
3. Knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way
influences a notary public to commit official
misconduct. [Sec. 1, Rule XI].
8. Relation to the Code of
Professional Responsibility
Violations of the 2004 Notarial Rules have also been
considered by the SC as violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.
Thus, in a case where the notary public was found
guilty of notarizing documents outside his area of
commission, with an expired commission, without
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS
the presence of the signatory to the document, and
with the assistance of his wife who is a non-lawyer, he
was also found in violation of the Code of
Professional Conduct and the Lawyer’s Oath:
The act of notarizing documents outside one’s area of
commission is not to be taken lightly. Aside from
being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of
law and falsification. Notarizing documents with an
expired commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath
to obey the laws, more specifically, the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. Since the public is deceived into
believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also
amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which
the lawyer's oath proscribes. Notarizing documents
without the presence of the signatory to the
document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and the lawyer’s
oath which unconditionally requires lawyers not to do
or declare any falsehood. Finally, Atty. Quintana is
personally accountable for the documents that he
admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve
himself of liability by passing the blame to his wife.
He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers
not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized
practice of law. All told, Atty. Quintana fell miserably
short of his obligation under Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which directs every
lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession. [Laquindanum v. Atty. Nestor Q.
Quintana, A.C. No. 7036, (2009)].
9. Revocation of Commission
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
a. The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial
commission for any ground on which an
application for a commission may be denied;
b. In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the
commission of, or impose appropriate
administrative sanctions upon, any notary public
who:
1. Fails to keep a notarial register;
2. Fails to make the proper entry or entries in
his notarial register concerning his notarial
acts;
3. Fails to send the copy of the entries to the
Executive Judge within the first ten days of
the month following;
4. Fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of
expiration of his commission;
Page 69 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
5. Fails to submit his notarial register, when
filled, to the Executive Judge;
6. Fails to make his report, within a reasonable
time, to the Executive Judge concerning the
performance of his duties, as may be
required by the judge;
7. Fails to require the presence of a principal at
the time of the notarial act;
8. Fails to identify a principal on the basis of
personal knowledge or competent evidence;
9. Executes a false or incomplete certificate
under Sec. 5, Rule IV;
10. Knowingly performs or fails to perform any
other act prohibited or mandated by these
Rules; and
11. Commits any other dereliction or act which
in the judgment of the Executive Judge
constitutes good cause for revocation of
com-mission or imposition of administrative
sanction [Sec. 1(a) and (b), Rule XI].
If the notarial certificate is incomplete or deficient, it
is as if there is no acknowledgment and the document
remains a private document, as if it had not been
notarized [Spouses Bautista v. Silva, G.R 157434,
(2006)].
A Deed of Donation, notarized without determining
the presence or qualification of affiants, demonstrates
grows negligence and ignorance of the Rules on
Notarial Practice [Laquindanum v. Quintana, A.C.7036,
(2009)].
A notary public should not notarize a document
unless the person who signed the same is the very
same person who executed and personally appeared
before him to attest to the contents and the truth of
what are stated therein. Without the personal
appearance of the person who actually executed the
document, the notary public would be unable to verify
the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging
party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s
free act or deed.
When a lawyer commissioned as a notary public fails
to discharge his duties as such, he is meted the
penalties of revocation of his notarial commission,
disqualification from being commissioned as a notary
public for a period of 2 years, and suspension from
the practice of law for 1 year [Agbulos v. Viray , G.R.
No. 7350 (2013)].
While Atty. Ching denied having notarized the Deed
by showing the discrepancy between his purported
and actual signature, he miserably failed to explain
how the Deed ended up in his notarial books. Atty.
Ching still failed in ensuring that only documents
U.P. LAW BOC LEGAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

which he had personally signed and sealed with his

notarial seal, after satisfying himself with the
completeness of the same and the identities of the
parties who affixed their signatures therein, would be
included in his notarial register. This also means that
Atty. Ching failed to properly store and secure his
notarial equipment in order to prevent other people
from notarizing documents by forging his signature
and affixing his notarial seal, and recording such
documents in his notarial books, without his
knowledge and consent. This is gross negligence.
Such had also unduly put the Castelo heirs in jeopardy
of losing their property. Thus, his existing
commission is revoked, and he is perpetually
disqualified from being a notary public and is
suspended from the practice of law for 6 months.
[Castelo v. Ching, A.C. No. 11165, (2017)].

Page 70 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

JUDICIAL ETHICS
Legal and Judicial Ethics

Page 71 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

II. Judicial Ethics B. Disqualifications of

Justices and Judges [Rule
A. Sources 137, ROC]
1. New Code of Judicial Note: Asked 5times in the last 25 years as of 2017 [Lex
Conduct for the Philippine Pareto (2017)]

Judiciary (Bangalore Draft) 1. Compulsory

In November 2002, at a Roundtable Meeting of Chief
No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case,
Justices held at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the
without the written consent of all parties in interest
Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity
and entered upon the record, in which:
amended and approved the Bangalore Draft of the Code
a. He, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested
of Judicial Conduct, which is intended to be the Universal
as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise; or
Declaration of Judicial Standards. It is founded on the
b. He is related to either party within the 6th degree
following principles:
of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within
a. A universal recognition that a competent,
the 4th degree, computed according to the rules
independent and impartial judiciary is essential if
of civil law;
the courts are to fulfill their role in upholding
c. He has been executor, administrator, guardian,
constitutionalism and the rule of law;
trustee or counsel; or
b. Public confidence in the judicial system and in
d. He has presided in any inferior court when his
the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary
ruling or decision is the subject of review [par. 1,
is of utmost importance in a modern democratic
Sec. 1].
society;
c. It is essential that judges, individually and
The rule on compulsory disqualification of a judge to
collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a
hear a case rests on the salutary principle that no judge
public trust and strive to enhance and maintain
should preside in a case in which he is not wholly free,
confidence in the judicial system.
disinterested, impartial and independent. A judge has
both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty
On April 27, 2004, the draft code was promulgated as
of doing it in a manner completely free from
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity.
through A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC and given effect on
June 1, 2004.
The law conclusively presumes that a judge cannot
objectively or impartially sit in such a case and, for
Purpose: The New Code seeks to not only update and
that reason, prohibits him and strikes at his authority
correlate the Code of Judicial Conduct and the
to hear and decide it, in the absence of written consent
Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted for the Philippines,
of all parties concerned. The purpose is to preserve
but also to stress the Philippines’ solidarity with the
the people's faith and confidence in the courts' justice
universal clamor for a universal code of judicial ethics.
[Garcia v. De La Peña, A.M. No. MTJ-92-687 (1994)].

2. Code of Judicial Conduct
The New Code of Judicial Conduct supersedes the
Canons of Judicial Ethics (1946) and the Code of
Judicial Conduct (1989). However, in case of
deficiency or absence of specific provisions, the
Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial
Conduct shall be applicable in a suppletory character.
The relationship of the judge with one of the parties
may color the facts and distort the law to the prejudice
of a just decision. Where this is probable or even only
possible, due process demands that the judge inhibit
himself, if only out of a sense of delicadeza [Javier v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. L-68379-81 (1996)].

Page 72 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
GROUNDS FOR COMPULSORY
INHIBITION OF A JUDGE
Note: asked in 2004 and 2010 Bar examinations [Lex
Pareto (2014)].
Actual Bias or Prejudice
In Umale v. Villaluz (1973), a judge inhibited himself
from trying a robbery case due to his personal
knowledge of the case. The Supreme Court stated that
it is possible that the respondent Judge might be
influenced by his personal knowledge of the case
when he tries and decides the same on the merits,
which would certainly constitute a denial of due
process to the party adversely affected by his
judgment or decision. Thus, it is best that, after some
reflection, the judge, on his own initiative disqualified
himself from hearing the robbery case and thereby
rendering himself available as witness to any of the
parties subject to cross-examination.
In People v. Gomez (1967), the judge dismissed criminal
informations on the suspicion, arising from a dinner
invitation from a stranger and a subsequent personal
investigation, that the court was being used as a forum
for extortion and exploitation of the persons charged.
The Supreme Court found that this unstated
extraneous matter makes the dismissal as one affected
with partiality and bias. The prayer of the judge to be
disqualified in hearing the case because he has lost all
respect in the manner in which the prosecutor has
been prosecuting the case was granted.
Economic Interest of Judge or his Family
In Oktubre v. Velasco (2004), a municipal judge, as
private complainant, caused three criminal complaints
to be filed before his own court. He also issued a
warrant of arrest and subpoenas before finally
inhibiting himself from hearing the cases. The
Supreme Court found him guilty of grave misconduct,
gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of
authority, and dismissed him from service. It stated
that the idea that a judge can preside over his own
case is anathema to the notion of impartiality and that
his subsequent inhibition from the three cases does
not detract from his culpability for he should not have
taken cognizance of the cases in the first place.
Reviewing Own Cases
In Sandoval v. CA (1996), the Supreme Court found
that an Associate Justice who only partly presided
over a case in the trial court and who did not render
the final decision cannot be said to have been placed
Page 73 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
in a position where he had to review his own decision
and, as such, was not legally bound, on this ground, to
inhibit himself as ponente of the case. Nevertheless, it
was held that he should have voluntarily inhibited
himself for his earlier involvement in the case
constitutes just or valid reason under Sec. 1, Rule 137.
A judge should not handle a case in which he might
be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be susceptible to
bias and partiality.
Previously Served as Counsel
A judge may validly disqualify himself due to his bias
and prejudice. [However,] bias and prejudice cannot
be presumed [Soriano v. Angeles (2000)]. The mere
imputation of bias or partiality is not sufficient for a
judge to inhibit, especially when the charge is without
basis. It must be proven with clear and convincing
evidence. [Gochan v. Gochan (2003)] Moreover, it has
been held that bias and prejudice must be shown to
have stemmed from an extra-judicial source and result
in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than
the evidence presented [Aleria v. Velez (1998)].
Disqualification was also allowed when the judge has
been previously associated with a party as counsel,
[Austria v. Masaquel (1978)] notarized the affidavit of a
person to be presented as witness [Mateo v. Villaluz
(1973)], if he is a material witness to a case [AmJur;
Lewis v. State (2002)]
2. Voluntary
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or
valid reasons other than those mentioned [par. 2, Sec.
1].
Sec. 5, Canon 3, New Code of Judicial Conduct
of the Philippine Judiciary.
Judges shall disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceedings in which they are
unable to decide the matter impartially or in which
it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are
unable to decide the matter impartially. Such
proceedings include, but are not limited to,
instances where:
a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or
was a material witness in the matter in
controversy;
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
c) The judge, or a member of his or her family,
has an economic interest in the outcome of
the matter in controversy;
d) The judge served as executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee, or lawyer in the case or
matter in controversy, or a former associate
of the judge served as counsel during their
association, or the judge or lawyer was a
material witness therein;
e) The judge's ruling in a lower court is the
subject of review;
f) The judge is related by consanguinity or
affinity to a party litigant within the 6th civil
degree or to counsel within the fourth civil
degree; or
g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or
child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee,
creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the
subject matter in controversy or in a party to
the proceeding, or any other interest that
could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceedings.
A judge must maintain and preserve the trust and faith
of the parties-litigants. He must hold himself above
reproach and suspicion. At the very first sign of lack
of faith and trust to his actions, whether well-
grounded or not, the judge has no other alternative
but inhibit himself from the case.
A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in
a litigation, but when circumstances appear that will
induce doubt to his honest actuations and probity in
favor of either party, or incite such state of mind, he
should conduct a careful self-examination. He should
exercise his discretion in a way that the people's faith
in the courts of justice is not impaired. The better
course for the judge under such circumstances is to
disqualify himself. That way, he avoids being
misunderstood, his reputation for probity and
objectivity is preserved [Bautista v. Rebueno, G.R. No. L-
46117 (1978)].
A judge should not be disqualified because he was a
classmate (or a co-member in a fraternity) of one of
the counsels if there is no proof that such relationship
results in actual bias or prejudice. To allow
disqualification would unnecessarily burden other
trial judges to whom the case will be assigned.
Confusion would result, because a judge would then
be barred from sitting in a case whenever one of his
former classmates (and he could have many) appeared
[Masadao and Elizaga, cited in Lex Pareto (2014)].
The mere fact that a counsel who is appearing before
a judge was one of those who recommended him to
Page 74 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
the Bench is not a valid ground from voluntary
inhibition. “Utang na loob” per se should not be a
hindrance to the administration of justice. Nor should
recognition of such value prevent the performance of
judicial duties. However, where the judge admits that
he may be suspected of surrendering to the
persuasions of utang na loob, and he may succumb to it
considering that he and members of the family, no
less shall ever remain obliged in eternal gratitude to
the recommending counsel, the judge should inhibit
himself [Query of Executive Judge Estrella Estrada, etc,
A.M. No. 87-9-3918-RTC (1987) cited in Lex Pareto
(2014)].
The mere imputation of bias or partiality is not
enough ground for inhibition, especially when the
charge is without basis. Extrinsic evidence must
further be presented to establish bias, bad faith,
malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable
error which may be inferred from the decision or
order itself [Philippine Commercial International Bank v.
Dy Hong Pi, G.R. No. 171137 (2009)].
The objecting party to his competency may, in
writing, file with the subject official his objection and
its grounds. The said official may, in accordance with
his determination of the question of his
disqualification, either: 1) proceed with the trial or 2)
withdraw therefrom.
The decision of the said official shall be in writing and
filed with the other papers in the case, but no appeal
or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason of, his
decision in favor of his own competency, until final
judgment in the case [Sec. 2].
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

court personnel should accordingly be filed with the

Supreme Court [Maceda v. Vasquez, supra.; Dolalas v.
C. Administrative Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 118808 (1996)].
Jurisdiction over Judges Administrative jurisdiction over a court employee
and Justices belongs to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether
the offense was committed before or after
employment in the judiciary. Indeed, the standard
1. Supreme Court procedure is for the CSC to bring its complaint
against a judicial employee before the Office of the
Under Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution, Justices of Court Administrator [Ampong v. CSC, G.R. No.
the Supreme Court may be removed from office, 167916 (2008)].
through impeachment upon conviction of culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft In order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of administrative case, the complaint must be filed
public trust; during the incumbency of the respondent. Once
jurisdiction is acquired, it is not lost by reason of
All other Justices and judges from the Court of respondent’s cessation from office [Re: Missing
Appeals to the lowest level may be removed from Exhibits and Court Properties in Regional Trial Court,
office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. Branch 4, Panabo City, Davao Del Norte, AM. 10-2-41-
RTC (2013)].
According to J. Carpio’s dissenting opinion in In re:
Charges of Plagiarism, etc. against Associate Justice del
Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC (2011), pursuant to Sec.
3 (1) and (6), Art. XI, 1987 Constitution, the sole
disciplining authority (i.e. exclusive authority to
discipline) of all impeachable officers, including
Justices of the Supreme Court, is Congress. While
impeachment is often described as a political process,
it also functions as the equivalent of administrative
disciplinary proceedings against impeachable officers
since impeachable officers are not subject to
administrative disciplinary proceedings either by the
Executive or Judicial branch.

2. All Other Courts

Pursuant to Sec. 6, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution, only
the Supreme Court can oversee compliance with the
law and the Rules of Court on the part of the
Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest
municipal trial court judge and take the proper
administrative action against them if they commit any
violation thereof, requiring supervisory or
administrative sanction [Agpalo, (2004)].

Pursuant to Sec. 11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution, the

Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in
the case and voted thereon.

Thus, the Ombudsman has no power to entertain and

investigate administrative complaints against judges
and court personnel. Complaints against judges and

Page 75 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
D. Initiation of Complaint
against Judges and
Justices
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
Proceedings for the discipline of judges of regular and
special courts and justices of the Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan may be instituted:
1. Motu proprio by the Supreme Court;
2. Upon the verified complaint, supported by
affidavits of persons who have personal
knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by
documents which may substantiate said
allegations; or
3. Upon an anonymous complaint, supported by
public records of indubitable integrity.
The complaint shall be in writing and shall state
clearly and concisely the acts and omissions
constituting violations of standards of conduct
prescribed for judges, the RoC, or the Code of Judicial
Conduct [Sec. 1].
The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not
confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person
complaining suffered injury from the alleged
wrongdoing. The procedural requirement observed in
ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-
interest must initiate the suit does not apply in
disbarment cases. Disbarment proceedings are
matters of public interest and the only basis for the
judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the
charges [Figueros v Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116 (2014)].
Page 76 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
E. Discipline of Members of
the Judiciary
Note: Not in the Bar Syllabus
The members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts shall hold office during a good behavior
until they reach the age of seventy years or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office [Sec. 11,
Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution].
1. Supreme Court
Members of the Supreme Court may be removed
from office on impeachment for, and conviction of,
culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or
betrayal of public trust [Sec. 2, Article XI, 1987
Constitution].
The impeachment of public officials has been
established for removing otherwise constitutionally
tenured and independent public officials.
The power to initiate impeachment cases rests with
the House of the Representatives while the power to
try the same rests with the Senate.
Based on Sec. 3, Article VI, 1987 Constitution, the
steps leading to impeachment are as follows:
a. A verified complaint for impeachment is filed by
a member of the House or endorsed by him;
b. The complaint is included in the order of
business of the House;
c. The House refers the complaint to the proper
committee;
d. The committee holds a hearing, approves the
resolution calling for impeachment, and submits
the same to the House;
e. The House considers the resolution and votes to
approve it by at least one-third of all its members,
which resolution becomes the article of
impeachment to be filed with the Senate when
approved; and
f. The Senate tries the public official under the
article [J. Abad, Separate Concurring Opinion,
Gutierrez v. HOR Committee on Justice, G.R. No.
193459 (2011)].
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
2. Lower Courts and Justices of
Court of Appeals, and
Sandiganbayan, and Court of
Tax Appeals (Rule 140)
a. Initiation of Proceedings
See Initiation of Complaint against Judges and
Justices above.
b. Investigation
Upon the filing of the comment of the respondent or
upon the expiration of the period for such filing,
which is ten days from the date of service to him of
the copy of the complaint [Sec. 2], the Supreme Court
shall:
1. Refer the matter to the Office of the Court
Administrator for evaluation, report, and
recommendation; or
2. Assign the case for investigation, report, and
recommendation to:
• A retired member of the Supreme Court, if
the respondent is a justice of the Court of
Appeals and the Sandiganbayan;
• A justice of the Court of Appeals, if the
respondent is a judge of a Regional Trial
Court or of a special court of equivalent
rank; or
• A judge of the Regional Trial Court, if the
respondent is a judge of an inferior court
[Sec. 3, Rule 140].
c. Hearing and Termination
The investigating justice of judge shall set a day for
the hearing and send notice to the parties. If the
respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall
proceed ex parte.
The investigating justice or judge shall terminate the
proceedings:
1. Within 90 days from the date of its
commencement; or
2. Within such extension as the Supreme Court
may grant [Sec. 4].
d. Report and Action
Within 30 days from termination, the investigating
justice or judge shall submit to the Supreme Court a
report containing his findings of fact and
Page 77 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
recommendation, accompanied by the evidence and
pleadings filed by the parties. Such report shall be
confidential and shall be for the exclusive use of the
Supreme Court.
A copy of the decision or resolution of the court shall
be attached to the record of the respondent in the
OCA [Secs. 5 and 12].
The Supreme Court shall take action on the report as
the facts and the law may warrant [Sec. 6].
Proceedings shall be private and confidential but a
copy of the decision shall be attached to the record of
the judge in the OCA [Sec. 12]
Automatic Conversion of Administrative Cases to
Disciplinary Proceedings
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, administrative
cases against justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan, judges of regular and special courts,
and court officials who are lawyers, shall also be
considered a disciplinary action against them, if they
are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for
the disciplinary action of members of the bar for:
a. Violation of the Lawyer's Oath;
b. Violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;
c. Violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics;
or
d. Such other forms of breaches of conduct that
have been traditionally recognized as grounds for
the discipline of lawyers.
The respondent is required to comment on the
complaint and show cause why he should not also be
suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinarily
sanctioned as a member of the bar. Judgment in both
respects may be incorporated in one decision or
resolution.
Members of the judiciary are not a class of their own.
In its recent rulings, the Court has also applied
substantial evidence as the quantum of proof
necessary in resolving administrative complaints
against judges [Macias v. Macias, AM RTJ-01-1650
(2009)].
Effect of Withdrawal or Desistance
The actuations of a judge seriously affect the public
interest inasmuch as they involve the administration
of justice. It is for this reason that a motion to
withdraw a complaint will not justify the dismissal of
the administrative case against the judge.
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
To condition administrative actions upon the will of
every complainant, who may, for one reason or
another, condone a detestable act, is to strip the
Supreme Court of its supervisory power to discipline
erring members of the judiciary [Anguluan v. Taguba
(1979)].
Complainant's desistance is not an obstacle to the
taking of disciplinary action against a judge if the
record reveals that he had not performed his duties
properly [Espayos v. Lee (1979)].
3. Grounds
Administrative charges are classified as serious,
less serious, or light [Sec. 7]
a. Misconduct
“Misconduct” implies a wrongful intention and not a
mere error or judgment. For serious [or gross]
misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence
showing that the judicial acts complained of were
corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law,
or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal
rules [In re: Impeachment of Horrilleno (1922)].
The commission of two or administrative offenses
alleged in the same administrative complaint may
aggravate the offense and render the same serious,
which will warrant dismissal of the judge from the
service [Agpalo (2004)].
The judge was found guilty of gross misconduct,
abandonment of office, and was dismissed due to his
frequent leave of absence totaling 3 years which were
not approved for his explanations were inexcusable.
He has caused great disservice to many litigants and
has denied them speedy justice [In Re: Leaves of Absence
without Approval of Judge Eric Calderon, AM 98-8-105
MTC, (1999)].
When Judge Samson accepted the application for a
judicial post of a probationer before his discharge
from probation and even recommending him for
such post, she committed impropriety and gross
misconduct [The Anonymous Letter Complaint vs. Judge
Samson, et al. A.M. No. MTJ 16-1870 (2017)].
Judge Barcillano committed conduct unbecoming a
judge when he embarrassed a lady police officer and
repeatedly asked her to stand and sit beside him,
insulted the lady police when he repeatedly asked her
name and said “PO1 ka lang”; and held her gun and
cocked it in public. [PO1 Myra Marcelo vs. Judge Ignacio
Barcillano, A.M. No. RTJ 16-2450 (2017)]
Page 78 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
By carrying an affair with a married woman, Judge
Laron's immorality and serious misconduct have
repercussions not only on the judiciary but also on the
millions OFWs. While Wilfredo was working hard
abroad to earn for his family, Judge Laron was
sleeping with his wife in his bed in his house and
spending his hard-earned dollars. What was even
worse was the flaunting of the illicit relationship
before his young boys who related it to him upon his
return from abroad. A judge is the visible
representation of the law and of justice. He must
comport himself in a manner that his conduct must
be free of a whiff of impropriety, not only with
respect to the performance of his official duties but
also as to his behavior outside his sala and as a private
individual. His character must be able to withstand
the most searching public scrutiny because the ethical
principles and sense of propriety of a judge are
essential to the preservation of the people's faith in
the judicial system. [Wilfredo F. Tuvillo vs. Judge Henry
Laron, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1755; Melissa J. Tuvillo vs.
Judge Henry Laron, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1756, (2016)].
Respondent's act of not wearing the judicial robe
during court sessions violates Administrative Circular
25 of 9 June 1989, which is mandatory. Violation of
Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars is
considered a less serious charge [Jocelyn Mclaren, et al.
vs. Hon. Jacinto C. Gonzales, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1876,
(2017)].
b. Gross Ignorance of the Law
Judge Mislang manifested serious lack of knowledge
and understanding of the basic legal principles on
prejudicial question and on jurisdiction in petitions
for suspension of criminal action based on prejudicial
questions. Where the law is straightforward and the
facts so evident, failure to know it or to act as if one
does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the
law. A blatant disregard of the clear and unmistakable
provisions of a statute, as well as Supreme Court
circulars enjoining their strict compliance, upends this
presumption and subjects the magistrate to
corresponding administrative sanctions. Judges are
expected to exhibit more than just cursory
acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws, they
must know the laws and apply them properly in all
good faith. Judicial competence requires no less.
Thus, unfamiliarity with the rules is a sign of
incompetence. [Department of Justice vs. Hon. Rolando
Mislang, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 (2016)]
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS
c. Gross Inefficiency
Like misconduct, inefficiency as a ground for
disciplinary action must be serious or one which is
weighty or momentous and not trifling. Negligence in
the performance of duty, if reckless in character,
could amount to serious or inexcusable inefficiency
[Agpalo (2004)].
Examples:
• Failure to deposit funds with the municipal
treasurer or produce them despite promise to do
so [Montemayor v. Collado (1981)];
• Misappropriation of fiduciary funds (i.e.,
proceeds of cash bail bond) by depositing the
check in a personal account, thus converting the
trust fund to personal use [Barja v. Beracio (1976)];
• Extorting money from a party-litigant who has a
pending case [Haw Tay v. Singayao (1988)]:
• Solicitation of donation for office equipment
[Lecaroz v. Garcia (1981)];
• Frequent unauthorized absences in office
[Municipal Council of Casiguruhan, Quezon v. Morales
(1974)];
• Delay in the disposition of cases in violation of
the canon that a judge must promptly dispose of
all matters submitted to him [Balagot v. Opinion
(1991)];
• Unduly granting repeated motions for
postponement [Araza v. Reyes (1975)];
• Unawareness of or unfamiliarity with the
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
and duration and graduation of penalties [In re:
Paulin (1980)];
• Reducing to a ridiculous amount (P6,000.00) the
bail bond of the accused murderer, enabling him
to escape the toils of the law [Soriano v. Mabbayad
(1975)].
• Imposing the penalty of subsidiary imprisonment
on a party for failure to pay civil indemnity in
violation of R.A. No. 5465 [Monsanto v. Palarca
(1983)]
• Directing a subordinate to alter the TSN by
incorporating statements pertaining to
substantial matters not actually made during the
hearing [Balanay v. White, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2443,
(2016)]
Judge Perez’s being inexperienced as a newly
appointed judge and his explanation that the delay
was not intended to prejudice the plaintiffs are not
persuasive because it is his duty to resolve the cases
within the reglementary period as mandated by law
and the rules. A judge is expected to keep his own
Page 79 of 106
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS
listing of cases and to note therein the status of each
case so that they may be acted upon accordingly and
without delay. He must adopt a system of record
management and organize his docket in order to
monitor the flow of cases for a prompt and effective
dispatch of business. He is guilty of undue delay in
rendering a decision which is a less serious charge.
[Gamboa-Roces vs. Perez, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887,
(2017)].
Judicial Immunity
General rule: A judge cannot be subjected to liability –
civil, criminal, or administrative – when he acts within
his legal powers and jurisdiction, even though such
acts are erroneous. [Agpalo (2004)].
Purpose: A judicial officer, in exercising the authority
vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own
convictions, without apprehension of personal
consequences to himself.
This concept of judicial immunity rests upon
consideration of public policy, its purpose being to
preserve the integrity and independence of the
judiciary [Equatorial Realty Development v. Anunciacion Jr.
AM MTJ-91-562 (1997)].
In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the
acts of judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to
disciplinary actions, even though these may be
erroneous, provided he acted in good faith and
without malice. In such case, the proper remedy is not
an administrative charge against the judge, but an
appeal or a petition for review of his decision
[Equatorial Realty Development v. Anunciacion Jr. supra].
Exceptions: A judge may be held criminally, civilly or
administratively liable
1. For malfeasance or misfeasance in office [Valdez
v. Valera, A.M. No. 1628-CAR (1978)].
2. Where an error is so gross or patent or when acts
were committed with fraud, dishonesty,
corruption, malice, ill-will, bad faith or deliberate
intent to do injustice [Lorenzana v. Austria, AM
RTJ-09-2200, (2014)].
3. When the law or procedure is so elementary, such
as the provisions of the ROC, not to know or to
act as if one does not know constitutes gross
ignorance of the law, even without proving
malice or bad faith [Pancho v. Aguirre, AM RTJ-09-
2196, (2010)].
Civil Liability
Refusal or neglect without just cause by a public
servant to perform his official duty [Art 27, Civil
Code].
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Directly or indirectly obstructing, defeating, violating

or in any manner impeding or impairing civil liberties
guaranteed by the Constitution [Art 32, Civil Code].

The responsibility for damages is not demandable of

judges except when his act or omission constitutes a
violation of the RPC or other penal statute [Agpalo,
2004].

Criminal Liability
a. Under the RPC
1. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment
[Art. 204]
2. Judgment rendered through negligence [Art.
205]
3. Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory
order [Art. 206]
4. Malicious delay in the administration of
justice [Art. 207]
5. Direct bribery [Art. 210]
6. Indirect bribery [Art. 211]
7. Infidelity in the custody of documents [Art.
226]
8. Open disobedience [Art. 231]
9. Prolonging performance of duties [Art. 237]
10. Abandonment of office [Art. 238]
11. Disobeying requisites for disqualification
[Art. 242]
12. Abuses against chastity [Art. 245]
13. Falsification by a public officer [Art. 171]
b. Under Special Laws
1. Plunder [R.A. No. 7080]
2. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act [R.A.
No. 3019]
3. Violation of the Code of Conduct of Public
Officials [R.A. No. 6713]
4. Violation of Omnibus Election Code
5. Violation of the right to counsel [E.O. 155]
6. Transfer of unlawfully acquired property
[R.A. No. 1379]

Page 80 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC JUDICIAL ETHICS LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

Administrative Liability [A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC (2001)]

Serious Charges Less Serious Charges Light Charges

Grounds 1. Undue delay in
1. Bribery, direct or indirect; rendering a decision or
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti- order, or in
Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. transmitting the
No. 3019); records of a case;
3. Gross misconduct constituting
2. Frequently and
violations of the Code of Judicial 1. Vulgar and
unjustified absences
Conduct; unbecoming
without leave or
4. Knowingly rendering an unjust conduct;
habitual tardiness;
judgment or order as determined by a 2. Gambling in public;
3. Unauthorized practice
competent court in an appropriate 3. Fraternizing with
of law;
proceeding; lawyers and litigants
4. Violation of Supreme
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral with pending
Court rules, directives,
turpitude; case/cases in his
and circulars;
6. Willful failure to pay a just debt; court; and
5. Receiving additional
7. Borrowing money or property from 4. Undue delay in the
or double
lawyers and litigants in a case pending submission of
compensation unless
before the court; monthly reports.
specifically authorized
8. Immorality;
by law;
9. Gross ignorance of the law or
procedure; 6. Untruthful statements
10. Partisan political activities; and in the certificate of
11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits [Sec. service; and
8]. 7. Simple misconduct
[Sec. 9]
Sanctions 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of
[Sec. 11] all or part of the benefits as the Court
1. Suspension from 1. A fine of not less
may determine, and disqualification
office without salary than P1,000.00
from reinstatement or appointment to
and other benefits for but not exceeding
any public office, including
not less than one nor P10,000.00;
government-owned or controlled
more than three and/or
corporations. Forfeiture of benefits
months; or 2. Censure;
does not include accrued leave credits;
2. A fine of more than 3. Reprimand;
2. Suspension from office without salary
P10,000.00 but not 4. Admonition with
and other benefits for more than three
exceeding P20,000.00 warning.
but not exceeding six months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00

Page 81 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

FORMS
Practical Exercises

Page 82 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

III. PRACTICAL EXERCISES

A. Demand and Authorization Letters
1. Demand Letter
[DATE]

[NAME OF ADDRESSEE]
[ADDRESS]
RE: [SUBJECT]

Dear [NAME],

We are writing in behalf our client [NAME], in the matter of [SUBJECT].

Records disclose that [SUMMARY OF BASIC FACTS SUPPORTING YOUR CLIENT’S

DEMAND/CAUSE OF ACTION].

We wish to inform you that your acts constitute violation of [APPLICABLE LAW OR CONTRACTUAL
STIPULATION].

Accordingly, a demand is hereby made upon you to settle the amount of [AMOUNT] within ____ days from
the receipt of this letter. Otherwise, we will be constrained to find recourse in the courts of law and file the
necessary legal action against you to protect the interest of our client.

We trust that you will give this matter your urgent attention.

Yours,
[COUNSEL]

2. Authorization Letter
[DATE]

[BRANCH CLERK OF COURT]

Regional Trial Court
Branch [NUMBER], [VENUE]
RE: [SUBJECT]

To the Branch Clerk of Court:

I am [NAME OF CLIENT], [Plaintiff/Defendant] in [Civil/Criminal] Case No. [NUMBER]

pending before this Honorable Court.

I am writing this letter to introduce my counsel, [FIRM] and to authorize its lawyers and apprentices,
including, but not limited to, [NAMES OF LAWYERS] to obtain copies of records pertaining to the
aforementioned case on my behalf.

For any clarifications or concerns, you may reach me through [NUMBER/E-MAIL ADDRESS]

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Yours,
[NAME OF CLIENT]

Page 83 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

B. Simple Contracts: Lease and Sale

1. Contract of Lease
CONTRACT OF LEASE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This Agreement made and entered into at [PLACE] this ____ day of [MONTH, YEAR] by and between
[NAME OF LESSOR], of legal age, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], (LESSOR) and resident
of [ADDRESS], and [NAME OF LESSEE], of legal age, single and resident of [ADDRESS] (LESSEE),
WITNESSETH that:

1. In consideration of a monthly rental of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,xxx.xx) and the
covenants made below, the LESSOR hereby LEASES to the LESSEE a(n) [PROPERTY] located at
[ADDRESS OF PROPERTY TO BE LEASED] covered by [TCT/TAX DEC. NO.] for a period of
TWELVE (12) MONTHS from signing of this contract.

2. The LESSEE covenants, as follows:

2.1. To pay the rentals on or before the fifth day of each month, without need of demand at the
residence of LESSOR;

2.2. To keep the premises in good and habitable condition, making the necessary repairs inside and
outside the house;

2.3. Not to make major alterations and improvements without the written consent of the LESSOR and
in the event of such unauthorized major alterations and improvements, surrendering ownership over such
improvements and alterations to the LESSOR upon expiration of this lease;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this contract on the date and the place first mentioned.

(sgd.) (sgd.)
[NAME OF LESSOR] [NAME OF LESSEE]
LESSOR LESSEE

[If Lessor is married, include spousal consent as follows:]

With my consent:

(sgd.)
[NAME OF SPOUSE OF LESSOR]
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR TWO-PARTY INSTRUMENT]

Page 84 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

2. Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle

DEED OF SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That I, [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, of legal age, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], a

resident of [ADDRESS OF SELLER], is the lawful owner of a certain motor vehicle which is more particularly
described as follows:

MAKE : MOTOR NO. :

SERIES : SERIAL/CHASSIS NO. :
TYPE OF BODY : PLATE NO. :
YEAR MODEL : FILE NO. :
C.R. NO. :

That for and in consideration of the sum of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,
xxx.xx), Philippine Currency, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged to my entire satisfaction, I hereby sell,
transfer and convey by way of Absolute Sale unto [NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, of legal age, and resident of
[ADDRESS OF BUYER], the above described motor vehicle, free from all liens and encumbrances.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR]
at [PLACE OF SIGNING].

(sgd.) (sgd.)
[NAME OF BUYER] [NAME OF SELLER]
VENDEE VENDOR

[If Seller is married, include spousal consent as follows:]

With my consent:

(sgd.)
[NAME OF SPOUSE OF SELLER]

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR TWO-PARTY INSTRUMENT]

Page 85 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

3. Bill of Sale (Personal Property)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

BILL OF SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, single, and resident of [ADDRESS OF SELLER] for and in
consideration of the amount of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP xxx,xxx.xx), paid to me today by
[NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, single and resident of [ADDRESS OF BUYER] do hereby SELL,
TRANSFER and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto said [NAME OF BUYER] the following
property:

(Description of property)

I own and have the right to sell and transfer the title and ownership of the above–described property; I will
defend the same against the claims of any and all persons whatsoever.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd).
[NAME OF SELLER]

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT]

Page 86 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

4. Unilateral Deed of Sale of Registered Land

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], and resident of

[ADDRESS OF SELLER] for and in consideration of the amount of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS]
(PhP xxx,xxx.xx), paid to me today by [NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, single and resident of [ADDRESS OF
BUYER] do hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto said [NAME OF
BUYER] that certain parcel(s) of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon situated in the
[CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF ____], free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever and more particularly
described as follows:

(Technical Description of property as indicated in the title)

of which I am the registered owner in fee simple, my title thereto being evidenced by
[TRANSFER/ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE TITLE NO.__________], issued by the Register of Deeds of
[CITY/MUNICIPALITY].

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd).
[NAME OF SELLER]

[If Seller is married, include spousal consent as follows:]

With my consent:
(sgd.)
[NAME OF SPOUSE OF SELLER]

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT]

Page 87 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

5. Unilateral Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, [NAME OF SELLER], Filipino, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], and resident of

[ADDRESS OF SELLER] for and in consideration of the amount of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS]
(PhP xxx,xxx.xx), paid to me today by [NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, single and resident of [ADDRESS OF
BUYER] do hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto said [NAME OF
BUYER] that certain parcel(s) of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon situated in the
[CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF ____], free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever and more particularly
described as follows:
(Description: state the nature of each piece of land and its improvements, situations and boundaries, area in
square meters, e.g. “Bounded on the N. by ____________; on the E. by ___________; on the S. by
____________; and on the W. by ____________; with an area of ________ square meters, more or less.”)

THAT the SELLER does hereby declare that the boundaries of the foregoing land are visible by means of
[MONUMENTS, CREEKS, TREES ETC.] that the permanent improvements existing thereon consist of
[LIST VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS, IF NONE, STATE SO.]; that the land is assessed for the current
year at (PhP xxx.xx) as per Tax Declaration No. _________, and that the property is in present possession of
the SELLER.

The above described real estate, not having been registered under Act No. 496 nor under the Spanish
Mortgage Law, I have agreed to register this instrument under the provisions of Sec. 194 of the Revised
Administrative Code, as amended by Sec. 113 of P.D 1159.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR] at [PLACE
OF SIGNING].

(sgd).
[NAME OF SELLER]

[If Vendor is married, include spousal consent as follows:]

With my consent:

(sgd.)
[NAME OF SPOUSE OF SELLER]

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT]

Page 88 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

6. Bilateral Deed of Sale of Registered Land

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

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], Filipino, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE], and resident of

[ADDRESS OF SELLER] (SELLER)

-and-

[NAME OF BUYER], Filipino, single/married to [SPOUSE, IF APPLICABLE] and resident of

[ADDRESS OF BUYER] (BUYER)

WITNESSETH

That the SELLER is the registered owner in fee simple of a parcel of land with improvements situated in the
[CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF ____] with [TRANSFER/ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE TITLE
NO.__________], issued by the Register of Deeds of [CITY/MUNICIPALITY] and more particularly
described as follows:

(Technical Description of property as indicated in the title)

That the SELLER for and in consideration of the amount of [AMOUNT IN WORDS PESOS] (PhP
xxx,xxx.xx), does hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto the BUYER
that certain parcel(s) of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon free from all liens and
encumbrances whatsoever.

That it is hereby mutually agreed that the BUYER shall bear all expenses for the execution and registration
of this deed of sale.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this contract on this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR]
at [PLACE OF SIGNING].

(sgd.) (sgd.)
[NAME OF BUYER] [NAME OF SELLER]
BUYER SELLER

[If Buyer and/or Seller are married, include spousal consent as follows:]

With my consent:

(sgd.) (sgd.)
[NAME OF SPOUSE OF BUYER] [NAME OF SPOUSE OF SELLER]

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_________________ _________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR TWO-PARTY INSTRUMENT]

Page 89 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

C. Special Power of Attorney

1. Special Power of Attorney for Sale of Real Property
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, [NAME], of legal age, Filipino citizen, with residence and postal address at [ADDRESS], do hereby
NAME, CONSTITUTE, AND APPOINT [NAME OF AGENT/ATTORNEY IN FACT], of legal age,
Filipino citizen, with postal address at [ADDRESS], as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact to act for and in my
name, place and stead and to perform the following acts:

(A) To sell, offer for sale, and come to an agreement as to the purchase price;
(B) To sign for me and in my name; and
(C) To receive payment from the sale of my property more particularly described as follows:

[DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY]

HEREBY GRANTING unto said attorney-in-fact full power and authority to execute and perform every act
necessary to render effective the power to sell the foregoing properties, as though I myself have performed it, and
HEREBY APPROVING ALL that he/she may do by virtue hereof with full right of substitution of his/her
person and revocation of this instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this___ day of [MONTH, YEAR],
in [PLACE OF EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT].

__________________ __________________
[NAME OF PRINCIPAL] [NAME OF AGENT]

Signed in the presence of:

__________________ __________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT]

Page 90 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

2. Special Power of Attorney for Purchase of Real Property

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, [NAME], of legal age, Filipino citizen, with residence and postal address at [ADDRESS], do hereby
NAME, CONSTITUTE, AND APPOINT [NAME OF AGENT/ATTORNEY IN FACT], of legal age,
Filipino citizen, with postal address at [ADDRESS], as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact to act for and in my
name, place and stead and to perform the following acts:

(A) To purchase real property or properties situated anywhere in the Philippines, in an amount acceptable to
him/her;
(B) To sign and/or execute any deed conveyance to effect the sale of the property in my name; and
(C) To receive all documents pertinent to the purchase of any property:

HEREBY GRANTING unto said attorney-in-fact full power and authority to execute and perform every act
necessary to render effective the power to purchase properties, as though I myself have performed it, and
HEREBY APPROVING ALL that he/she may do by virtue hereof with full right of substitution of his/her
person and revocation of this instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this___ day of [MONTH, YEAR],
in [PLACE OF EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT].

__________________ __________________
[NAME OF PRINCIPAL] [NAME OF AGENT]

Signed in the presence of:

__________________ __________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT]

Page 91 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

3. Special Power of Attorney for Representation in Actions

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, [NAME], of legal age, Filipino citizen, Corporate Secretary of [CORPORATION] (“ABC”), a

corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, by virtue of this authority given to me pursuant to
Board Resolution duly issued by the Board of Directors of [“ABC”] in its meeting on [DAY MONTH YEAR],
as evidenced by the secretary’s certificate attached hereto, do hereby NAME, CONSTITUTE, AND APPOINT
[NAME OF AGENT/ATTORNEY IN FACT], of legal age, Filipino citizen, with postal address at
[ADDRESS], to be [“ABC”]’s true and lawful attorney-in-fact in Civil Case No. 21324 entitled [TITLE]
(“Case”), to act for on its behalf to:

(A.) Appear for and represent [ABC] whether at the original or appellate stage, and whether as appellant of
appellee, petitioner or respondent;
(B.) Sign, under oath or otherwise, all necessary and appropriate pleadings, motions, verifications,
certifications, papers and documents;
(C.) Act as agent and appear on behalf of [ABC] in the mandatory conciliation, mediation conference, judicial
dispute resolution, and pre-trial proceedings and all other hearings in the Case, with full power and
authority to consider:
(i.) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of submission to alternative modes of dispute
resolution;
(ii.) The simplification of issues;
(iii.) The necessity or desirability of amending the pleadings;
(iv.) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of fact and of documents to avoid
unnecessary proof;
(v.) The limitation of the number of witnesses;
(vi.) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner;
(vii.) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing
the Case should a valid ground therefor be found to exist;
(viii.) The advisability or necessity of suspending proceedings; and
(ix.) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of this Case.
(D.) Negotiate, conclude, enter into, and execute a compromise or amicable settlement of the Case, if
appropriate.

HEREBY GRANTING unto said attorney-in-fact full power and authority to execute and perform every act
necessary, as though ABC itself has performed it, and HEREBY APPROVING ALL that he/she may do by
virtue hereof with full right of substitution of his/her person and revocation of this instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this___ day of [MONTH, YEAR],
in [PLACE OF EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT].

__________________ __________________
[NAME OF PRINCIPAL] [NAME OF AGENT]

Signed in the presence of:

__________________ __________________

[PLUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT]

Page 92 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

D. Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping

I, [NAME], Filipino, of legal age, with residence at [ADDRESS] do hereby state that:

1. I am the [PARTY e.g. COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER etc.] in the above-entitled case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing [DESIGNATION OF THE PLEADING e.g.

PETITION, COMPLAINT etc.];

3. I have read its contents and affirm that they are true and correct to the best of my own personal
knowledge and authentic documents in our possession;

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;

5. To the best of my knowledge no other such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency and if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR]
at [PLACE OF SIGNING].

(sgd.)
[NAME OF AFFIANT]
Affiant

[PLUS JURAT]

Notes:
As per In Re: Letter Complaint of Fabiana [A.M. No. CA-13-51-J (2013)], if there are pending actions involving the
same parties and/or related question of law and/or fact, the affiant must render complete statements of the present
status thereof.

In Jacinto v. Gumaru, Jr. [G.R. No. 191906 (2014), the Court reiterated the difference between non-compliance
and defective form:
1. A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum
shopping.
2. As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally
defective. The Court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances
are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be
served thereby.
3. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of
the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have
been made in good faith or are true and correct.
4. As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification,
is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the
Rule on the ground of substantial compliance or presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons.
5. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise,
those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances,
however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action
or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies
with the Rule.

Page 93 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

6. Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If,
however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special
Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

Page 94 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

E.Notice of Hearing and Explanation in Motions

1. Request for and Notice of Hearing
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
[COURT e.g. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT etc.]
[CITY/MUNICIPALITY], [BRANCH NO.]

Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its consideration and approval immediately upon receipt
hereof and kindly include the same in the court’s calendar for hearing on [DATE] at [TIME e.g. 8:30 in the
morning.]

[NAME AND DETAILS OF COUNSEL OF OTHER PARTY]

Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on [DATE] at [TIME e.g. 8:30 in the morning.]

(sgd.)
[NAME AND DETAILS OF COUNSEL]

Note: The following provisions of Rule 15 – Motions, Rules of Court state the requirements of a notice of hearing:

Sec. 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of
the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.

Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as
to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good
cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. (4a)

Sec. 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the
time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. (5a)

Page 95 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

2. Proof of Service by Registered Mail with Explanation

Copy Furnished:

[NAME AND DETAILS OF COUNSEL OF OTHER PARTY]

EXPLANATION

The foregoing [DESIGNATION OF PLEADING, MOTION, ETC.] and its attachment(s) were served on
[NAME OF OPPOSING COUNSEL] [IF APPLICABLE: “AND FILED WITH THIS HONORABLE
COURT”] by registered mail due to the lack of time and available personnel to effect personal service. This
explanation is given pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.

(sgd.)
[NAME AND DETAILS OF COUNSEL]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, [NAME], a messenger of [NAME OF COUNSEL], with office address at [ADDRESS] after being
duly sworn, hereby depose and state:

That on [DATE OF MAILING], I served a copy of the following pleadings/papers by registered mail in
accordance with Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court:

Nature of Pleading/Paper
________________________
________________________

in Case No. _________________ entitled ____________________ by depositing a copy in the post office in a
sealed envelope, plainly addressed to [NAME OF PARTY OR HIS/HER COUNSEL] at [ADDRESS] with
postage fully paid, as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. _____________________ attached and with instructions
to the post master to return the mail to sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Affidavit on ___day of [MONTH, YEAR]
at [PLACE OF SIGNING].

(sgd.)
[NAME OF AFFIANT]
Affiant

[PLUS JURAT]

Page 96 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

F. Judicial Affidavit
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

I, [NAME], of legal age, [SINGLE/MARRIED], [CITIZENSHIP], residing at [ADDRESS], employed as

[OCCUPATION/PROFESSION] at [OFFICE ADDRESS], after having been duly sworn to in accordance
with law and fully conscious that I do so under oath and that I may face criminal liability for false testimony or
perjury in way of answers to the questions propounded to me during the examination conducted on [DATE] by
[NAME OF LAWYER], with office address [OFFICE ADDRESS OF LAWYER], do hereby depose and
state:

Q1: [QUESTION]

A: [ANSWER]

Q2: [QUESTION]

A: [ANSWER]

Q3: [QUESTION]

A: [ANSWER]

Q4: [QUESTION]

A: [ANSWER]

Q5: [QUESTION]

A: [ANSWER]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR]
at [PLACE OF SIGNING].

(sgd.)
[NAME OF AFFIANT]
Affiant

ATTESTATION AND OFFER

I, [NAME OF LAWYER], of legal age, with office address [OFFICE ADDRESS OF LAWYER], do
hereby certify that:

I propounded questions to [NAME] and faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions I asked
and the corresponding answers that [NAME] gave, as above stated.

Neither I nor any other person then present or assisting [HIM/HER] coached [HIM/HER] regarding
[HIS/HER] answers and which testimony is being offered to prove: [ENUMERATE THE PURPOSE OF
THE OFFER].

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument this ___day of [MONTH, YEAR]
at [PLACE OF SIGNING].

(sgd.)
[NAME OF LAWYER]

Page 97 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

[PLUS JURAT WHICH INCLUDES THE DETAILS OF THE WITNESS AND LAWYER]
Note: Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to ALL actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the presentation of
evidence; ALL courts, quasi-judicial and investigative bodies authorized by SC to receive evidence, including IBP;
and NOT to small claims cases.

A false attestation shall subject the lawyer to disciplinary action against disbarment.

Page 98 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

G.Notarial Certificates: Jurat and Acknowledgement

1. Jurat

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME in the [CITY/MUNICIPALITY of

_______________] on this ___ day of [MONTH, YEAR], affiant exhibiting before me his Government Issued
ID no. _______________ issued on [DATE OF ISSUANCE] at [PLACE OF ISSUANCE] and valid until
[DATE OF EXPIRY].

(Sgd.)
NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of [Year]

2. Acknowledgment (Two-Party Instrument)

Republic of the Philippines )
City of ____________ ) S.S.

BEFORE ME, this ___ day of [MONTH, YEAR] in the [CITY/ MUNICIPALITY OF __________],
personally appeared:

NAME TYPE OF I.D AND I.D NO. DATE/PLACE ISSUED

__________________________ _____________________________ _________________________
__________________________ _____________________________ _________________________

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on the day, year and place
written.

(Sgd.)
NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of [Year]

Note: If the instrument consists of 2 or more pages, include the following after the 1st paragraph:

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 ___________ and his witnesses (if any), and sealed
with my Notarial seal.

Page 99 of 106
U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

3. Acknowledgment (Affiant Representing a Corporation)

Republic of the Philippines )
City of ____________ ) S.S.

BEFORE ME, this ___ day of [MONTH, YEAR] in the [CITY/ MUNICIPALITY OF __________],
personally appeared [NAME OF AFFIANT], representing to be [POSITION IN THE CORPORATION]
of [NAME OF CORPORATION] with [VALID IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENT]
(No.________________) issued by the [OFFICIAL AGENCY] on [DATE OF ISSUANCE], known to me
to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument, and who acknowledged to me that the same is his
free act and deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on the day, year and place
written.

(Sgd.)
NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of [Year]

Note: Acknowledgment v. Jurat

A jurat is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the instrument was sworn to before him. It is not
a part of a pleading but merely evidences the fact that the affidavit was properly made. The jurat in the petition in
the case also begins with the words "subscribed and sworn to me." To subscribe literally means to write underneath,
as one's name; to sign at the end of a document. To swear means to put on oath; to declare on oath the truth of a
pleading, etc. Accordingly, in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before
a notary public or any other person authorized to administer oaths. (Gamido v. New Bilibid Prison Officials, G.R. No.
114829, March 1, 1995). An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some
competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. (Tigno v. Spouses Aquino, G.R. No. 129416, November
25, 2004)

Note that if the document is subscribed before a public officer duly authorized to take oaths under the Revised
Administrative Code, then there is no need for the affiant to produce a Community Tax Certificate (CTC), any
competent evidence of identity by at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing
the photograph and signature of an individual, nor for the entry into a Notarial Register; the italicized portion of the
JURAT is dispensed with, but not the oath itself.

Page 100 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

4. Scilicet
Refers to the venue of execution of the instrument or document, and is read as “to wit” or “that is to say”.
Note: Not in Bar Syllabus, but is common to forms

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City/Municipality of ____________ ) S.S

5. Details of Notary Public

Note: Not in Bar Syllabus, but is common to forms

[NAME OF NOTARY]
Notary Public
[PLACE OF COMMISSION]
Until [DATE OF EXPIRY OF COMMISSION]
Roll No.__________
IBP O.R. No. ___/Date of Issue
PTR No. ______, Date/ Place of Issue
MCLE Compliance No.

Note: The details of the notary public are similar to what is written on the Counsel’s Information in a pleading.

6. Details of Counsel
Note: Not in Bar Syllabus, but is common to forms

[NAME OF COUNSEL]
Counsel for the
[DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF]
Roll No.
IBP O.R. No. ___/Date of Issue
PTR No. ______, Date/ Place of Issue
MCLE Compliance No.
[ADDRESS]
[CONTACT NO.]

Notes:
1. Rule 7, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court reiterates the importance of the signature of counsel, and an unsigned
pleading produces no legal effect.
2. The En Banc Resolution on Bar Matter No. 1132 (2003) requires counsels to indicate the ff. in all papers and
pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi-judicial bodies:
a. Roll of Attorney’s No.
b. IBP Official Receipt No. OR Lifetime Membership No.
c. Current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) No.
3. A.M. NO. 07-6-5-SC (2007) requires counsels to indicate in their pleadings or other legal documents their
contact details aside from address such as telephone number, fax number, cellular phone number, or email
address.
4. Bar Matter No. 1922 (2008) requires practicing members of the bar to indicate in all pleadings filed before the
courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or
Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period.

Page 101 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

H. Motions for Extension of Time, to Dismiss, and to

Declare in Default
1. Motion for Extension of Time
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
BRANCH [#], [VENUE]

[PLAINTIFF] Civil Case No.: 123984

Plaintiff,
-versus- For: [NATURE OF ACTION]

[DEFENDANT],
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------x.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

COMES NOW the Defendant by his undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court respectfully states
that:
1. Defendant engaged the services of undersigned counsel only on [DATE];
2. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the Complaint on [DATE] and thus has until
[DATE] within which to submit an [ANSWER OR OTHER RESPONSIVE PLEADING];
3. However, due to the pressured of equally urgent professional work and prior commitments, the
undersigned counsel will not be able to meet the said deadline;
4. As such, the undersigned counsel is constrained to request for an additional period of [NUMBER OF
DAYS] from [DATE TODAY] or until [DATE OF END OF EXTENSION] within which to
submit Defendant’s [ANSWER OR OTHER RESPONSIVE PLEADING]. Moreover, this
additional time will also allow the undersigned to interview the available witness and study this case
further;
5. This motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the foregoing reasons.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendant most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that he be given an additional period
of [NUMBER OF DAYS] from [DATE TODAY] or until [DATE OF END OF EXTENSION] within
which to submit an [ANSWER OR OTHER RESPONSIVE PLEADING].
Other just and equitable reliefs prayed for.
[VENUE], [DATE].

[NAME OF COUNSEL]
Attorney for Defendant
[ADDRESS]
Roll No. [1234]
PTR No. [1234] / [Place] / [Date]
IBP No. [[1234] / [Place] / [Date]
MCLE Compliance No. [1234]

NOTICE OF HEARING

The undersigned will submit the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time for the consideration and approval of
the Honorable Court on [DATE] at [TIME].

Page 102 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

COPIES FURNISHED

[NAME OF COUNSEL]
Attorney for Plaintiff
[ADDRESS]

[BRANCH CLERK OF COURT]

Regional Trial Court of [VENUE]
Branch [NUMBER]

EXPLANATION

This motion will be served on Plaintiff’s counsel by registered mail due to lack of time and distance between his
office and the office of the undersigned.

Page 103 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

2. Motion to Dismiss
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
BRANCH [#], [VENUE]

[PLAINTIFF] Civil Case No.: 123984

Plaintiff,
-versus- For: [NATURE OF ACTION]

[DEFENDANT],
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------x.

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the defendant by his undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court respectfully moves
that the complaint be dismissed on the following grounds:

[GROUNDS]

Discussion

[ARGUMENTS]

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

[VENUE], [DATE].

[NAME OF COUNSEL]
Attorney for Defendant
[ADDRESS]
Roll No. [1234]
PTR No. [1234] / [Place] / [Date]
IBP No. [[1234] / [Place] / [Date]
MCLE Compliance No. [1234]

NOTICE OF HEARING

The undersigned will submit the foregoing Motion to Dismiss for the consideration and approval of the
Honorable Court on [DATE] at [TIME].

COPIES FURNISHED

[NAME OF COUNSEL]
Attorney for Plaintiff
[ADDRESS]

[BRANCH CLERK OF COURT]

Regional Trial Court of [VENUE]
Branch [NUMBER]

Page 104 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

EXPLANATION

This motion will be served on Plaintiff’s counsel by registered mail due to lack of time and distance between his
office and the office of the undersigned.

3. Motion to Declare in Default

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
BRANCH [#], [VENUE]

[PLAINTIFF] Civil Case No.: 123984

Plaintiff,
-versus- For: [NATURE OF ACTION]

[DEFENDANT],
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------x.

MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff by his undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully moves that
the Defendant be declared in default. Plaintiff respectfully states that:
1. The records of the Honorable Court show that the Defendant was served with copy of the summons
and of the complaint, together with annexes thereto on [DATE];
2. Upon verification however, the records show that Defendant [NAME] 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;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Defendant [NAME] 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 just and equitable reliefs prayed for.

[VENUE], [DATE].

[DETAILS OF COUNSEL]
Attorney for Plaintiff
[ADDRESS]
Roll No. [1234]
PTR No. [1234] / [Place] / [Date]
IBP No. [[1234] / [Place] / [Date]
MCLE Compliance No. [1234]

NOTICE OF HEARING

The undersigned will submit the foregoing Motion to Declare in Default for the consideration and approval of
the Honorable Court on [DATE] at [TIME].

COPIES FURNISHED

[DETAILS OF COUNSEL]
Attorney for Defendant

Page 105 of 106

U.P. LAW BOC FORMS PRACTICAL EXERCISES

[ADDRESS]

[BRANCH CLERK OF COURT]

Regional Trial Court of [VENUE]
Branch [NUMBER]

EXPLANATION

This motion will be served on Defendant’s counsel by registered mail due to lack of time and distance between
his office and the office of the undersigned.

Page 106 of 106