Canon 1

Rule 1.01

Overgard vs. Valdez

Facts: The complainant, engaged the services of respondent as his legal counsel in two cases filed by
him and two cases filed against him. Despite the receipt of the full amount of legal fees, the respondent
refused to perform any of his obligations under their contract for legal services, ignored the
complainant’s request for a report of the status of the cases entrusted to his care, and rejected the
complainant’s demands for the return of the money paid to him. Complainant Overgaard filed a
complaint for disbarment against Valdez before the IBP. During the investigation, respondent Valdez did
not participate despite due notice. He was declared in default for failure to submit an answer and attend
the mandatory conference. He did not submit a position paper or attend the hearing. The Court held
that respondent Valdez committed multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

Issue: whether respondent’s abandonment of his client constitutes a violation of his oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility?

Held: Yes, the court find that respondent’s disbarment should be upheld. From the facts of the case,
and based on his own admissions, it is evident that he has committed multiple violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. In abruptly abandoning his law office without advising his client and without
making sure that the cases he was handling for his client were properly attended to during his absence,
and without making arrangements whereby he would receive important mail, the respondent is clearly
guilty of gross negligence. A lawyer cannot simply disappear and abandon his clients and then rely on
the convenient excuse that there were threats to his safety. Even assuming that there were serious
threats to his person, this did not give him the permission to desert his client and leave the cases
entrusted to his care hanging. He should have at least exercised reasonable and ordinary care and
diligence by taking steps to ensure that the cases he was handling were attended to and that his client’s
interest was safeguarded. If it was not possible for him to handle the cases entrusted to his care, he
should have informed the complainant of his predicament and asked that he be allowed to withdraw
from the case to enable the client to engage the services of another counsel who could properly
represent him. Deplorably, the respondent just disappeared, deserted his client and forgot about the
cases entrusted to his care, to the complainant’s damage and prejudice. The respondent’s disbarment is
not anchored on his failure to do anything in relation the cases entrusted to his care, but on his
abandonment of his client. He will not be absolved from liability on the basis alone of these
inconsequential acts which he claims to have accomplished because the glaring fact remains that he has
failed to perform his essential obligations to his client, to the courts and to society. As the complainant’s
lawyer, the respondent is expected to serve his client with competence and diligence.30 This
includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care and giving the complainant sound legal
advice, but also properly representing his client in court, attending scheduled hearings, preparing and
filing required pleadings, prosecuting the cases entrusted to his care with reasonable dispatch, and
urging their termination without waiting for his client or the court to prod him to do so. He should not
idly sit by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty.

SAMALA VS ATTY. VALENCIAA.C. NO. 5439 ; JANUARY 22, 2007

FACTS:This is a complaint filed by Clarita J. Samala against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia for Disbarment on
the following grounds: (a) serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties;

(b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence;

(c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees; and

(d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring illegitimate children.

ISSUE:WON respondent violated his Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Yes.

Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and21 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and recommended the penalty of suspension for six months.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of Commissioner
Reyes but increased the penalty of suspension from six months to one year.

The Court held:

a. On serving as counsel for contending parties – Canon 21The fact that respondent filed a case entitled
"Valdez and Alba v. Bustamante and her husband," is a clear indication that respondent is protecting the
interests of both Valdez and Albain the said case. Respondent cannot just claim that the lawyer-client
relationship between him and Alba has long been severed without observing Section 26, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court wherein the written consent of his client is required. Respondent's representation of
Valdez and Alba against Bustamante and her husband, in one case, and Valdez against Alba, in another
case,is a clear case of conflict of interests which merits a corresponding sanction from this Court.

b. On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence – Canon 10Respondent
cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the title he submitted was already cancelled in lieu of a new title
issued in the name of Alba in 1995 yet, as proof of the latter's ownership. What is decisive in this case is
respondent's intent in trying to mislead the court by presenting TCT No. 273020 despite the fact that
said title was already cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 275500, was already issued in the name of Alba.

c. On initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment of rental fees – Dismissed for lack of
sufficient basis.

The act of respondent of filing the aforecited cases to protect the interest of his client, on one hand, and
his own interest, on the other, cannot be made the basis of an administrative charge unless it can be
clearly shown that the same was being done to abuse judicial processes tocommit injustice.

d. On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children – Canon 1, Rule 1.01

The Court found respondent liable for being immoral by siring illegitimate children. During the hearing,
respondent admitted that he sired three children by Teresita Lagmay who areall over 20 years of age,
while his first wife was still alive. In this case, the admissions made by respondent are more than enough
to hold him liable on the charge of immorality.

In sum, the Court found respondent Atty. Luciano D. Valencia guilty of misconduct and violation of
Canons 21, 10 and 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspended him from the practice of
law for three years.

Narag vs Narag Case Digest

Julieta B. Narag vs. Atty. Dominador M. Narag

291 SCRA 451

Facts: Atty. Narag’s spouse filed a petition for disbarment in the IBP alleging that her husband courted
one of his students, later maintaining her as a mistress and having children by her. Atty. Narag claims
that his wife was a possessive, jealous woman who abused him and filed the complaint out of spite. IBP
disbarred him, hence, this petition.
Held: Narag failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute the testimony given against him
and it was proved that his actions were of public knowledge and brought disrepute and suffering to his
wife and children. Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the
bar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme Court may
withdraw his or her privilege to practice law. (Canons 1&7, Rule 7.03, Code of Ethics for Lawyers) It is
not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members.
Hence when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.
Grossly immoral means it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the common sense of decency. As a lawyer, one must not only refrain from adulterous
relationships but must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by creating a belief that he is
flouting those moral standards.
Delos Reyes vs. Aznar

Facts:Complainant, a second year medical student of the Southwestern University (Cebu), alleged in her
verified complaint that respondent Atty. Jose B. Aznar, then chairman of said university, had carnal
knowledge of her for several times... under threat that she would fail in her Pathology subject if she
would not submit to respondent's lustful desires. Complainant further alleged that when she became
pregnant, respondent, through a certain Dr. Gil Ramas, had her undergo... forced abortion.

July 9, 1974, respondent filed his Answer denying any personal knowledge of complainant as well as all
the allegations contained in the complaint and by way of special defense, averred that complainant is
a... woman of loose morality.

On September 2, 1974, the Court Resolved to refer the case to the Solicitor General for investigation,
report and recommendation.

The Court notes that throughout the period of the investigation conducted by the Solicitor General,
respondent Aznar was never presented to refute the allegations made against him.

As special defense, respondent further alleged that the charge leveled against him is in furtherance of
complainant's... vow to wreck vengeance against respondent by reason of the latter's approval of the
recommendation of the Board of Trustees barring complainant from enrollment for the school year
1973-1974 because she failed in most of her subjects. It is likewise contended... that the defense did
not bother to present respondent in the investigation conducted by the Solicitor General because
nothing has been shown in the hearing to prove that respondent had carnal knowledge of the
complainant.

In effect, the Solicitor General found that the charge of immorality against respondent Aznar has been
substantiated by sufficient evidence, both testimonial and documentary; while finding insufficent and
uncorroborated the accusation of intentional... abortion. The Solicitor General then recommends the
suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a period of not less than three (3) years.

Issues: is guilty of "grossly immoral conduct" and may therefore... be removed or suspended by the
Supreme Court for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar

Ruling: Under Section 27, Rule 138, "(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 admission to practice.
it was highly immoral of respondent, a married man with children, to have taken advantage of his
position as chairman of the college of medicine in asking complainant, a student in said college, to go
with him to Manila where he... had carnal knowledge of her under the threat that she would flunk in all
her subjects in case she refused.

WHEREFORE, respondent Jose B. Aznar is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered stricken off from
the Roll of Attorneys.

[A.C. No. 5118. September 9, 1999]

MARILOU SEBASTIAN, complainant, vs. ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS, Respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

For unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct as well as violation of his oath as lawyer,
respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis faces disbarment.

The facts of this administrative case, as found by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP),1 in its Report, are as follows:

Complainant (Marilou Sebastian) alleged that sometime in November, 1992, she was referred to the
respondent who promised to process all necessary documents required for complainants trip to the USA
for a fee of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00).
On December 1, 1992 the complainant made a partial payment of the required fee in the amount of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), which was received by Ester Calis, wife of the respondent for
which a receipt was issued.

From the period of January 1993 to May 1994 complainant had several conferences with the respondent
regarding the processing of her travel documents. To facilitate the processing, respondent demanded an
additional amount of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00) and prevailed upon complainant to resign
from her job as stenographer with the Commission on Human Rights.

On June 20, 1994, to expedite the processing of her travel documents complainant issued Planters
Development Bank Check No. 12026524 in the amount of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (P65,000.00) in
favor of Atty. D. Calis who issued a receipt. After receipt of said amount, respondent furnished the
complainant copies of Supplemental to U.S. Nonimmigrant Visa Application (Of. 156) and a list of
questions which would be asked during interviews.

When complainant inquired about her passport, Atty. Calis informed the former that she will be
assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer married to Roberto Ferrer, employed as sales manager of Matiao
Marketing, Inc. the complainant was furnished documents to support her assumed identity.

Realizing that she will be travelling with spurious documents, the complainant demanded the return of
her money, however she was assured by respondent that there was nothing to worry about for he has
been engaged in the business for quite sometime; with the promise that her money will be refunded if
something goes wrong.

Weeks before her departure respondent demanded for the payment of the required fee which was paid
by complainant, but the corresponding receipt was not given to her.

When complainant demanded for her passport, respondent assured the complainant that it will be given
to her on her departure which was scheduled on September 6, 1994. On said date complainant was
given her passport and visa issued in the name of Lizette P. Ferrer. Complainant left together with
Jennyfer Belo and a certain Maribel who were also recruits of the respondent.

Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, complainant together with Jennyfer Belo and
Maribel were apprehended by the Singapore Airport Officials for carrying spurious travel documents;
Complainant contacted the respondent through overseas telephone call and informed him of by her
predicament. From September 6 to 9, 1994, complainant was detained at Changi Prisons in Singapore.

On September 9, 1994 the complainant was deported back to the Philippines and respondent fetched
her from the airport and brought her to his residence at 872-A Tres Marias Street, Sampaloc, Manila.
Respondent took complainants passport with a promise that he will secure new travel documents for
complainant. Since complainant opted not to pursue with her travel, she demanded for the return of her
money in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00).

On June 4, 1996, June 18 and July 5, 1996 respondent made partial refunds of P15,000.00; P6,000.00;
and P5,000.00.
On December 19, 1996 the complainant through counsel, sent a demand letter to respondent for the
refund of a remaining balance of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P114,000.00) which was
ignored by the respondent.

Sometime in March 1997 the complainant went to see the respondent, however his wife informed her
that the respondent was in Cebu attending to business matters.

In May 1997 the complainant again tried to see the respondent however she found out that the
respondent had transferred to an unknown residence apparently with intentions to evade responsibility.

Attached to the complaint are the photocopies of receipts for the amount paid by complainant,
applications for U.S.A. Visa, questions and answers asked during interviews; receipts acknowledging
partial refunds of fees paid by the complainant together with demand letter for the remaining balance
of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P114,000.00); which was received by the respondent.2

Despite several notices sent to the respondent requiring an answer to or comment on the complaint,
there was no response. Respondent likewise failed to attend the scheduled hearings of the case. No
appearance whatsoever was made by the respondent.3 As a result of the inexplicable failure, if not
obdurate refusal of the respondent to comply with the orders of the Commission, the investigation
against him proceeded ex parte.

On September 24, 1998, the Commission on Bar Discipline issued its Report on the case, finding that:

It appears that the services of the respondent was engaged for the purpose of securing a visa for a
U.S.A. travel of complainant. There was no mention of job placement or employment abroad, hence it is
not correct to say that the respondent engaged in illegal recruitment.

The alleged proposal of the respondent to secure the U.S.A. visa for the complainant under an assumed
name was accepted by the complainant which negates deceit on the part of the respondent. Noted
likewise is the partial refunds made by the respondent of the fees paid by the complainant. However,
the transfer of residence without a forwarding address indicates his attempt to escape responsibility.

In the light of the foregoing, we find that the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for violating
Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that ATTY. DOROTHEO CALIS be SUSPENDED as a member

of the bar until he fully refunds the fees paid to him by complainant and comply with the order of the
Commission on Bar Discipline pursuant to Rule 139-B, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court.4

Pursuant to Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, this administrative case was elevated to the IBP
Board of Governors for review. The Board in a Resolution5 dated December 4, 1998 resolved to adopt
and approve with amendment the recommendation of the Commission. The Resolution of the Board
states:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution/Decisions as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on
record and the applicable laws and rules, with an amendment that Respondent Atty. Dorotheo Calis be
DISBARRED for having been found guilty of Gross Misconduct for engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.

We are now called upon to evaluate, for final action, the IBP recommendation contained in its
Resolution dated December 4, 1998, with its supporting report.

After examination and careful consideration of the records in this case, we find the resolution passed by
the Board of Governors of the IBP in order. We agree with the finding of the Commission that the charge
of illegal recruitment was not established because complainant failed to substantiate her allegation on
the matter. In fact she did not mention any particular job or employment promised to her by the
respondent. The only service of the respondent mentioned by the complainant was that of securing a
visa for the United States.

We likewise concur with the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution, that herein respondent is guilty of
gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct contrary to Canon 1,
Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent deceived the complainant by assuring
her that he could give her visa and travel documents; that despite spurious documents nothing
untoward would happen; that he guarantees her arrival in the USA and even promised to refund her the
fees and expenses already paid, in case something went wrong. All for material gain.

Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral
flaws in a lawyer. They are unacceptable practices. A lawyers relationship with others should be
characterized by the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyers
oath. The lawyers oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld
and keep inviolable.[6 The nature of the office of an attorney requires that he should be a person of
good moral character.[7 This requisite 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.8 We have sternly
warned that any gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, puts his
moral character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to continue in the
practice of law.9

It is dismaying to note how respondent so cavalierly jeopardized the life and liberty of complainant
when he made her travel with spurious documents. How often have victims of unscrupulous travel
agents and illegal recruiters been imprisoned in foreign lands because they were provided fake travel
documents? Respondent totally disregarded the personal safety of the complainant when he sent her
abroad on false assurances. Not only are respondents acts illegal, they are also detestable from the
moral point of view. His utter lack of moral qualms and scruples is a real threat to the Bar and the
administration of justice.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they
possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such
privilege.10 We must stress that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A
lawyer has the privilege to practice law only during good behavior. He can be deprived of his license for
misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after giving him the opportunity to be
heard.11

Here, it is worth noting that the adamant refusal of respondent to comply with the orders of the IBP and
his total disregard of the summons issued by the IBP are contemptuous acts reflective of unprofessional
conduct. Thus, we find no hesitation in removing respondent Dorotheo Calis from the Roll of Attorneys
for his unethical, unscrupulous and unconscionable conduct toward complainant.

Lastly, the grant in favor of the complainant for the recovery of the P114,000.00 she paid the
respondent is in order.12 Respondent not only unjustifiably refused to return the complainants money
upon demand, but he stubbornly persisted in holding on to it, unmindful of the hardship and humiliation
suffered by the complainant.

WHEREFORE, respondent Dorotheo Calis is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered stricken from
the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be FURNISHED to the IBP and the Bar Confidant to be
spread on the personal records of respondent. Respondent is likewise ordered to pay to the
complainant immediately the amount of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand (P114,000.00) Pesos
representing the amount he collected from her.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes,
and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., and Panganiban, J., on official leave.
Rule 1.02 and Rule 1.03

A lawyer has the obligation not to encourage suits. This is so as to prevent barratry and ambulance
chasing.

What is Barratry?

Barratry – offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits, either at law or otherwise;
Lawyer’s act of fomenting suits among individuals and offering his legal services to one of them.

What is Ambulance Chasing?

Ambulance Chasing – Act of chasing victims of accidents for the purpose of talking to the said victims (or
relatives) and offering his legal services for the filing of a case against the person(s) who caused the
accident(s).
Rule 1.04

Melendrez vs Decena

Facts: There was two charged filed against Atty. Decena. First was about a 4k loan obtained by the
spouses secured by a real estate mortgage. However, it appeared on the real estate mortgage document
that the amount loaned to complainants was P5,000.00 instead of 4k. He said that the signing of the
documents was just for formality. so, they did. The spouses religiously paid 10% or 500 as interest for
only 3months because of financial reverses. Consequently, Atty. Decena made a second real estate
mortgage document and the loan extended to complainants had escalated to P10,000.00. Again, on the
assurance that it was only for formality, the spouses signed the new REM document.

After 3 years, they learned that their lot was already sold to someone. So they tried to raise the 10k and
went to Atty. Decena’s house but the latter did not accept the money and instead gave them a sheet of
paper indicating that the total indebtedness had soared to 20,400.

The second charge against respondent relates to acts done in his professional capacity, that is, done at a
time when he was counsel for the complainants in a criminal case for estafa against accused. It was
alleged that Atty. Decena effected a compromise agreement concerning the civil liability of accused
without the consent and approval of the complainants and that he received the amount of P500.00 as
an advance payment and he did not inform the spouses about this. And even after he was confronted,
he still did not turn over the money.

Issue:

Ruling: As to the first charge, the SC held that Atty. Decena indeed deceived the spouses.From the facts
obtaining in the case, it is clear that the complainants were induced to sign the Real Estate Mortgage
documents by the false and fraudulent representations of respondent that each of the successive
documents was a are formality.

While it may be true that complainants are not at all illiterate, respondent, being a lawyer, should have
at least explained to complainants the legal implications of the provisions of the real estate mortgage,
particularly the provision appointing him as the complainants’ attorney-in-fact in the event of default in
payments on the part of complainants.

As to the second charge, repondent is presumed to be aware of Section 23 Rule 138 that lawyers cannot
“without special authority, compromise their clients’ litigation or receive anything in discharge of a
client’s claim, but the full amount in cash.” Respondent’s failure to turn over to spouses the partial
payment underscores his lack of honesty and candor in dealing with his clients.
The SC reiterated that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice of law but a continuing requirement.

Atty. Decena was disbarred.

Canon 2

Rule 2.01

Catalan vs. Silvosa

Facts: Thee Sandiganbayan convicted Atty. Silvosa for direct bribery for bribing his then colleague
prosecutor.

Attyy Silvosa claimed that “it is not the lawyer in respondent that was convicted, but his capacity as a
public officer, the charge against respondent for which he was convicted falling under the category of
crimes against public officers.
Issue: won Atty. Silvosa should be disbarred considering that the crime for which he was convicted was
in his capacity as public officer.

Ruling: Yes.

Disbarment follows as a consequence of Atty. Silvosa’s conviction of the crime.

His excuse that his conviction was not in his capacity as a lawyer, but as a public officer, is unacceptable
and betrays the unmistakable lack of integrity in his character. The practice of law is a privilege, and
Atty. Silvosa has proved himself unfit to exercise this privilege.

Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa was DISBARRED.

*Legal Aid is not a matter of charity, but a social responsibility

*Under what circumstances are lawyers obliged/ justified to decline professional employment?

Rule 2.02

*Duty of lawyer when refusal to accept the case is justified.

Rule 2.03

Why does the rule prohibit solicitation?

Practice of law is not a business. Differentiate the two.

Primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business;

1. duty of service, of which the emolument is a by product, and in which one may attain the highest
eminence without making such money;

2. a relation as an ‘officer of court’ to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity
and reliability;
3. a relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;

4. a relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness and unwillingness to resort to
current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice or dealing with their
clients.

Defenseless – not in the position to defend themselves due to poverty, weakness, ignorance or other
similar reasons.

Oppressed – victims of acts of cruelty, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of authority.

Rule 2.04

Why does Rule 2.04 proscribe lawyers from charging rates lower than those customarily prescribed. Is
there any exception to the rule?

- A lawyer cannot delay the approval of a compromise agreement entered into between parties, just
because his attorney’s fees were not provided for in the agreement.

- Rule: A lawyer cannot compromise the case without client’s consent (special authority).

- Exception: Lawyer has exclusive management of the procedural aspect of the litigation (e.g.
Submission for decision on the evidence so far presented. But in case where lawyer is confronted with
an emergency and prompt/urgent action is necessary to protect clients interest and there’s no
opportunity for consultation, the lawyer may compromise.

- Rule: Refrain from charging rates lower than the customary rates.

- Valid Justification: relatives, co-lawyers, too poor

Canon 3

Rule 3.03

What is the best advertisement of lawyers?

Rule on Advertisements
- General Rule: No advertisements allowed. The most worthy and effective advertisement possible is the
establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.

- Lawyers may not advertise their services or expertise nor should not resort to indirect advertisements
for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his
photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer has been engaged or
concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the
lawyer’s position, and all other self-laudation.

What is permissible from making known a lawyer’s service?

- Exceptions/ Permissible advertisements:

1. Reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of
brief biographical and informative data, are allowed.

2. Ordinary simple professional Card. It may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law
firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and the special branch of law practiced.

3. A simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm
name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable.

4. Advertisements or simple announcement of the existence of a lawyer or his law firm posted anywhere
it is proper such as his place of business or residence except courtrooms and government buildings.

5. Advertisements or announcement in any legal publication, including books, journals, and legal
magazines.

Rule 3.02

What is the rule regard to the use of a firm name?

May the firm continue to use the name of a deceased partner ?

Rule 3.03

What should a partner in the law firm who was appointed to public office do?

Canon 4&5

What is the duty of a lawyer in connection with developments in the legal system?

Bar Matter No. 850 Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)

Purpose

Requirements of Completion

Who are exempted from MCLE?

Consequence of non-compliance
Bar Matter No. 1922; consequence of non-compliance with B.M. No. 1922

Canon 6

Are these canon applicable to lawyers in the Government?

Rule 6.01

What is the duty of a lawyer engage in public prosecution?

May a private prosecutor intervene in the prosecution of a crime? Are there exceptions?
Rule 6.02

Rule 6.03

Section 7(b) RA 6713

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - 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; or

(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 one (1) year after resignation, retirement, or
separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional
concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be
with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.

Forbidden Office
Canon 7

Consequences of knowingly making false statement or suppression of a material fact in application to

the Bar.

*Before the candidate could take the bar examination

*After the candidate had passed the examination but before taking his oath

*After the candidate has taken his oath

Canon 8

Rule 8.01

Cases
Rule 8.02

Rules on accepting employment on a matter previously handled another lawyer