Lawyer's Oath *Memorize
02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall
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, or give aid
nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will
conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
(Promulgated June 21, 1988)
*Chapter titles= four fold duties; arrangement is important to determine
which duty prevails in case of conflict
 
CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage
any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN
EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of
the defenseless or the oppressed.
Rule 2.
not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the
extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE
ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed
name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is
permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that
said partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from
the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law
allows him to practice law currently.
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.
CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM
AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,
PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN
THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN
DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT
SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
Presh 1
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is
not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public
position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.
CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
 
Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false
statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application
for admission to the bar.
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the
bar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character,
education, or other relevant attribute.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS
AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL
AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
 
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member
of the bar in good standing.
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that,
upon the 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 profit
sharing agreement.
CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.
 
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
contents of 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.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Presh 2

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE
TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON
SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
 
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported
by the record or have no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS
DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.
 
Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately
prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will
adduce and the order of its proferrence. He should also be ready with the
original documents for comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same
cause.
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of
a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break
or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent
himself or to impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor
needlessly inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:
(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an
instrument, and the like; or
(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the
ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the
trial of the case to another counsel.
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND
REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES
THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.
 
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality
to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another
branch or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial
proceedings.
CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT
CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.
 
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.
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient
cause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a
request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for
rendition of free legal aid.
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent
client unless:
(a) he is not in a 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.
Presh 3
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.
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY
IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
 
Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain
as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with
another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the
prospective client.
Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication
in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as
mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and
honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case,
neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any
public official, tribunal or legislative body.
Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws
and the principles of fairness.
Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation
concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether
he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart
from his own and those of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may
apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also
have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has
secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the
client's interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except,
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a
legal matter he is handling for the client.
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.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
 
Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or
should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render
such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating
counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information.
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN
THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
 
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting
Presh 4
or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in
the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or
tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing
which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance
with the Rules of Court.
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in
handling the case.
CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.
 
Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining
his fees:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) the time spent and the extent of the service 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.
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with the consent of the client,
be entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the work performed and
responsibility assumed.
Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of
the client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or
forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his
professional employment from anyone other than the client.
Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice or fraud.
CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF
HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED.
 
Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client
except;
(a) When authorized by the client after 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 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use
information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the
same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with
full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client,
give information from his files to an outside agency seeking such
information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data
processing, or any similar purpose.
Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to
partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.
Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to
prevent those whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using
confidences or secrets of the clients.
Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client's
affairs even with members of his family.
Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a
particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD
CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Presh 5
Rule 22.01 - A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following
case:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in
connection with the matter he is handling;
(b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these
canons and rules;
(c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best
interest of the client;
(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult
for him to carry out the employment effectively;
(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails
to comply with the retainer agreement;
(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
(g) Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a
retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the
client is entitled, and shall cooperative with his successor in the orderly
transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper
handling of the matter.
RULE 138
Attorneys and Admission to Bar
Practice of Law
“Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. ‘To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law 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)
RULE 138
Attorneys and Admission to Bar
WHO MAY PRACTICE LAW
1. Any person duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
2. admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and
3. who is in good and regular standing
REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION TO BAR
1. citizen of the Philippines,
2. at least twenty-one years of age,
3. of good moral character,
4. resident of the Philippines; and
5. 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.
OTHER JURISDICTION
1. Citizens of the United States of America who, before July 4, 1946,
were duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice
in the courts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing as
such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts before the
Supreme Court, be allowed to continue such practice after taking
the following oath of office
2. Applicants for admission who, being Filipino citizens, are enrolled
attorneys in good standing in the Supreme Court of the United
States or in any circuit court of appeals or district court therein, or
in the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States,
and who can show by satisfactory certificates that they have
practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that such practice
began before July 4, 1946, and that they have never been
suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the Court, be
admitted without examination.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER APPLICANTS BEFORE TAKING
EXAM
Presh 6
 1. satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied law for four
years, and
2. successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or
university, officially approved and recognized by the Secretary of
Education.
3. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from
the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such
facts, and further evidence may be required by the court.
certificate required by section 5, and if embraced within sections 3 and 4
they shall exhibit a license evidencing the fact of their admission to
practice, satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked, and
certificates as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at
the same time their own affidavits as to their age, residence, and
citizenship.
SUBJECTS IN THE BAR

REQUIRED SUBJECTS 1. Civil Law;

2. Labor and Social Legislation;
1. civil law, 3. Mercantile Law;
2. commercial law, 4. Criminal Law;
3. remedial law, 5. Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and Public
4. criminal law, Officers);
5. public and private international law, 6. International Law (Private and Public);
6. political law, 7. Taxation;
7. labor and social legislation, 8. Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence);
8. medical jurisprudence, 9. Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and Conveyancing).
9. taxation and
10. legal ethics. DISCIPLINARY MEASURE-No candidate shall endeavor to influence any
member of the committee, and during examination the candidates shall not
PRE-LAW communicate with each other nor shall they give or receive any assistance.
The candidate who violates this provisions, or any other provision of this
1. political science, rule, shall be barred from the examination, and the same to count as a
2. logic, failure against him, and further disciplinary action, including permanent
3. english, disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the court.
4. spanish,
5. history and
6. economics. general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per
cent in any subjects to pass; breakdown
TIME FOR FILING PROOF OF QUALIFICATIONS 1. Civil Law, 15 per cent;
2. Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent;
All applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the Supreme Court 3. Mercantile Law, 15 per cent;
the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days 4. Criminal Law; 10 per cent:
before the beginning of the examination. If not embraced within section 3 5. Political and International Law, 15 per cent;
and 4 of this rule they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and 6. Taxation, 10 per cent;
Presh 7
 7. Remedial Law, 20 per cent;
8. Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.
Failing candidates to take review course. — Candidates who have failed the
bar examinations for three times shall be disqualified from taking another
examination unless they show the satisfaction of the court that they have
enrolled in and passed regular fourth year review classes as well as
attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law school.
The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the
candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that the candidates have
regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the same
conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by them in the
particular subject.
Admission and oath of successful applicants. — 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.
Attorney's roll. — The clerk of the Supreme Court shall keep a roll of all
attorneys admitted to practice, which roll shall be signed by the person
admitted when he receives his certificate.
DUTIES OF ATTORNEYS
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to
support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines.
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice
and judicial officers;
(c) 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.
(d) 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;
(e) 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;
(f) 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 charged;
(g) 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;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the
cause of the defenseless or oppressed;
(i) 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.
GR: an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to appear
E: the presiding judge may require any attorney to produce or prove the
authority under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to
any issue, the name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon
make such order as justice requires.
COMPENSATION
An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more
than a reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to the
Presh 8
importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the
services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney.
A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor
unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt.
When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it
has been demanded, he may be punished for contempt
In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be
entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and written
notice of the change shall be given to the advance party.
A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his
place, but if the contract between client and attorney has been reduced to
writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without justifiable cause, he
shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation stipulated
in the contract. However, the attorney may, in the discretion of the court,
intervene in the case to protect his rights. For the payment of his
compensation the attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the
payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgment,
rendered in the case wherein his services had been retained by the client.
Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds
(DMM-GG-DOCS)
1. for any deceit,
2. malpractice, or
3. other gross misconduct in such office,
4. grossly immoral conduct, or
5. by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or
6. for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to practice, or
7. for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or
8. for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority so to do.
9. soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
No attorney shall be removed or suspended from the practice of his
profession, until he has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to
answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf,
and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he
fails to appear and answer the accusation, the court may proceed to
determine the matter ex parte.
Attorneys for destitute litigants. — 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.
NOT ALLOWED TO ENGAGE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE
1. judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or
2. official or employee of the Office of the Solicitor General of the
Office
Amicus Curiae. — Experienced and impartial attorneys may be invited by
the Court to appear as amici curiae  to help in the disposition of issues
submitted to it.
Attorneys' liens. — An attorney shall have 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. 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.
RULE 139-B
Presh 9
Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys
How Instituted. Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of
attorneys may be taken:
a. by the Supreme Court motu propio, or
b. by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified
complaint of any person.
The complaint shall state
a. clearly and concisely the facts complained of and
b. shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal
knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as
may substantiate said facts.
 Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial
Court. 1 — The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may
suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in
Rule 138, Section 27 2, until further action of the Supreme Court in
the case.
 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.

Service or dismissal. —
1. If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall
direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring
him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of
service.
2. If not, the same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon
his recommendation. A copy of the resolution of dismissal shall be
furnished the complainant and the Supreme Court which may
review the case motu propio or upon timely appeal of the
complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the dismissal of the
complainant.

 Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful

order issued by the Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect
contempt of court.
 After receipt of respondent's answer or lapse of the period therefor,
the Supreme Court, motu propio, or at the instance of the IBP Board
of Governors upon the recommendation of the Investigator, may
suspend an attorney from the practice of his profession for any of
the causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the pendency of
the investigation until such suspension is lifted by the Supreme
Court.
Presh 10

JUDICIAL ETHICS
Judge Philip A. Aguinaldo
Regional Trial Court
Muntinlupa City
NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
"..a judge's official conduct and his behavior in the performance of judicial
duties should be free from the appearance of impropriety and must be
beyond reproach.  One who occupies an exalted position in the
administration of justice must pay a high price for the honor bestowed
upon him, for his private as well as his official conduct must at all times be
free from the appearance of impropriety.  Because appearance is as
important as reality in the performance of judicial functions, like Caesar's
wife, a judge must not only be pure but also beyond suspicion.xxx"
-Joaquin vs. Javellana  [A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601.  November 13, 2001]
A judge should possess the virtue of GRAVITAS. He should be learned in the
law, dignified in demeanor, refined in speech and virtuous in character.
Besides having the requisite learning in the law, he must exhibit that
hallmark judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and self-restraint. In this
connection, he should be considerate, courteous and civil to all persons who
come to his court. A judge who is inconsiderate, discourteous or uncivil to
lawyers, litigants or witnesses who appear in his sala commits an
impropriety and fails in his duty to reaffirm the people’s faith in the
judiciary. (Juan de la Cruz (Concerned Citizen of Legazpi City vs. Judge, RTC,
Legazpi City).
Backgrounder: The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary consists of it consists of six canons to wit: Independence,
integrity, impartiality, propriety, equality, and competence and diligence.
This is based on the 2002 Bangalore Draft, as amended, which was
intended to be the Universal Declaration of Judicial Standards applicable
in all judiciaries.
This New Code of Judicial conduct supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics
and the Code of Judicial Conduct, but the latter may still apply in a
suppletory character in case of deficiency or absence of provisions in the
New Code.
A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC
ADOPTING THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE
JUDICIARY
WHEREAS, at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace
Palace, The Hague, on 25-26 November 2002, at which the Philippine
Supreme Court was represented by the Chief Justice and Associate Justice
Reynato S. Puno, the Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial
Conduct adopted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial integrity
was deliberated upon and approved after incorporating therein several
amendments;
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft, as amended, is intended to be the
Universal Declaration of Judicial Standards applicable in all judiciaries;
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft is founded upon a universal recognition
that a competent, independent and impartial judiciary is essential if the
courts are to fulfill their role in upholding constitutionalism and the rule of
law; that public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral
authority and integrity of the judiciary is of utmost importance in a
modern democratic society; and that it is essential that judges,
individually and collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a public
trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system;
WHEREAS, the adoption of the universal declaration of standards for
ethical conduct of judges embodied in the Bangalore Draft as revised at
Presh 11
the Round Table Conference of Chief Justices at The Hague is imperative
not only to update and correlate the Code of Judicial Conduct and the
Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted for the Philippines, but also to stress the
Philippines’ solidarity with the universal clamor for a universal code of
judicial ethics.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court hereby adopts this New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary:
CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a
fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and
exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional
aspects.
Independence : Individual and institutional
SEC. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the
basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a
conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influence,
inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any
quarter or for any reason.
How is independence achieved?
Judges should prepare their decisions / read the pleadings and
memorandum of the parties and not merely to rely on the output of their
researchers.
They should not be pressured to rush their decisions by their fellow judges
/ justices.
SEC. 2. In performing judicial duties, judges shall be independent from
judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to
make independently.
Asking advice from fellow judge.
Visiting another judge.
Writing recommendations or letters of introduction
Calling another judge
Assignment of local government employees in court needs approval of SC
Allowances
SEC. 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of
litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative
agency.
Prohibition : court and administrative agencies
Using letter head of the court
Appearing in barangay conciliation proceedings / mediation /
arbitration
Mere presence in court proceedings
SEC. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to
influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall
not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey
or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special
position to influence the judge.
SEC. 5. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with,
and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government,
but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.
Mere friendship is not a violation except when it is appears to be giving
unwarranted favour.
Test : “reasonable observer”
SEC. 6. Judges shall be independent in relation to society in general and in
relation to the particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to
adjudicate.
Presh 12
No ex-parte communication
Keep distance and avoid invitations from litigants
No picture taking
No meeting with litigants in places outside of the court
SEC. 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of
judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and
operational independence of the judiciary.
Gross ignorance of the law
SEC. 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct
in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, which is
fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office
but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
Deliberate concealment of prior administrative or criminal cases in PDS
SEC. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach,
but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
Mere appearance in prohibited or morally obscene places
Test : “Reasonable observer”
No distinction as to public or private transactions
Acts that commenced when judge was a practicing lawyer as when he
purchased a house and lot but refused to pay balanced when he became a
judge
SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s
faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but
must also be seen to be done.
Maintaining a mistress and bringing said mistress in social gatherings
Sexual harassment, kissing, wiring love letters / poems / drawing genitals
Asking intimidating questions while being drunk in a party
Gambling like playing in slot machine
Punching a fellow judge in a disagreement
Failure to supervise punching of daily time record
Going to the precinct to castigate police when driver figured in an accident
Borrowing records of another court
SEC. 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures
against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which
the judge may have become aware.
Use of contempt power
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It
applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the
decision is made.
A judge who did not wait for the filing of a memorandum despite the
period given to the litigant violates the process. It does not matter if the
decision is correct.
SEC. 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or
prejudice.
Giving excuse for the mayor in leaving the court without permission
Allowing only the supporters of the mayor to enter the court room while
the petitioner is the only one allowed inside
Building the case of one party by asking questions that go into the merit of
the case (not clarificatory questions)
Showing sympathy, bias gesture, impatience, angry voice
Meeting with one party outside court
Presh 13
Scheduling a hearing outside jurisdiction
SEC. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of
court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the
judiciary.
Appearance of impartiality
Riding with the litigant in an ocular inspection
Judge sent his son an errand but the son violated traffic rules. Judge cited
traffic enforcer contempt of court
Judge announces in open court, he is “pro accused”
SEC. 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to
minimize the
occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from
hearing or deciding cases.
Making comments on the lives of people in the community / cases like
ejectment even if he is not the one handling the case but there is
possibility that the case will be handled by the judge on appeal
Attending parties
Socializing with parties even if case is already disposed of
Officiating marriage of the son of the accused in his (accused) house
Being a godfather in baptism or wedding
SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before or could
come before them, make any comment that might reasonably be expected
to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the manifest fairness
of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment in public or otherwise
that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.
Publicity does not, in and of itself, impair court proceedings. Even in the
highly publicized case of Webb,  where the parties, their sympathizers, and
lawyers all participated in a media blitz, this Court required proof that the
fairness and impartiality of the investigation was actually affected by the
publicity. (Atty. Roque vs. AFP, et al., Feb. 15, 2017)
SEC. 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any
proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in
which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to
decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not
limited to, instances where
(a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;
(b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in
the matter in controversy;
(c) The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest
in the outcome of the matter in controversy;
(d) The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or
lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the
judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer
was a material witness therein;
(e) The judge’s ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;
(f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant
within the sixth 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;
Presh 14
In a 2020 SC Resolution, SC acts on judges, justices’ ‘invalid’ inhibition
from cases
Justices of third level courts and judges of second- and first-level courts to
refrain from inhibiting from cases without “just and valid” reason.
Under Administrative Order No. 62-2020, CJ Peralta directed the justices
of the third level courts and the second- and first-level courts judges to
specifically address “persistent reports,” citing Canon 3 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which puts a premium on the
court’s impartiality in the discharge of the judicial office.
Under Section 1 of the Code, judges were urged to “perform their judicial
duties without favor, bias or prejudice.”
In issuing the order, the chief justice reminded them to “carry out judicial
duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties,
witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without
differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper
performance of such duties.”
For stricter monitoring, Peralta has also issued a separate administrative
order required all justices of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and
Court of Tax Appeals as well as trial court judges, to submit to his office
copies of temporary restraining orders (TROs), status quo ante orders
(SQAs), and writs of preliminary injunction (WPIs), and orders of voluntary
inhibition within five days of its issuance.
Judge should inhibit only on clear grounds (Chavez vs. Marcos, June 27,
2018)
Judge cannot be charged administratively even how erroneous is the
decision if there is no proof of bad faith. There should be manifest
partiality. (Biado vs. Judge Brawner-Cualing, Feb. 15, 2017), (Sunico vs.
Judge Gutierrez, Feb. 21, 2017).
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court encapsulates the rules on the
disqualification and the inhibition of judicial officials. Thus:
Section 1. Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officer shall sit in
any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir,
legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party
within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within
the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in
which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel,
or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or
decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties
in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
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
above.
From the above, the rule on disqualification and inhibition essentially
involves two aspects, one being compulsory disqualification and the other
being voluntary inhibition.
Compulsory disqualification assumes that a judge cannot actively or
impartially sit on a case for the reasons stated in the first paragraph of
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules. It has been said that the rationale for the
rule on the compulsory disqualification of a judge or judicial officer is
predicated on the long-standing precept that no judge should preside in a
case in which he or she is not wholly independent, disinterested or
impartial. Judges should not handle cases in which they might be
perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be susceptible to bias and partiality. The
rule is aimed at preserving at all times the people's faith and confidence in
our courts, which are essential to the effective administration of justice.
On the other hand, the aspect of voluntary inhibition, as stated in the
second paragraph, involves the use of discretion. Undoubtedly, it partakes
of voluntariness and is a matter of conscience that is addressed primarily
to the judge's sense of fairness and justice.
This discretion is an acknowledgment of the fact that judges are in a better
position to determine the issue of inhibition, as they are the ones who
directly deal with the litigants in their courtrooms. The decision on
whether he should inhibit himself, however, must be based on his rational
and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case brought
before him.
To guide the members of the bench, it should be stated that inhibition
Presh 15
must be for just and valid causes. Generally, the mere imputation of bias,
partiality and prejudgment will not suffice in the absence of clear and
convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will
undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence
and without fear or favor. The disqualification of a judge cannot be based
on mere speculations and surmises or be predicated on the adverse nature
of the judges rulings towards the movant for inhibition.46 In fact, this Court
has, on several instances, ruled that to warrant the judge's inhibition from
the case, bias or prejudice must be shown to have stemmed from an extra-
judicial or extrinsic source. In other words, a judge must inhibit only if it is
shown that a judge's evident leaning towards a party would result in a
disposition on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned
from participating in the case.
After all, the option given to a judge to choose whether or not to handle a
particular case should be counterbalanced by the judge's sworn duty to
administer justice without fear of repression.
As with many rules, however, there are exceptions; such as -whenever it is
shown that the consistency and regularity with which a judge issued the
assailed directives give rise, not to a fanciful suggestion or to a superficial
impression of partiality, but to a clear and convincing proof of bias and
prejudice, a judge may be directed to'inhibit himself from presiding over
the case.
Thus, a presiding 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. 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. What is more
important, the ideal of impartial administration of justice is lived tip to.
Inhibition and disqualification in criminal cases are more strict than in civil
cases. If the accused is acquitted, there is practically no remedy on appeal
by the prosecution except under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Filing of an administrative case against the judge is not a ground for
inhibition in the absence of factual basis for bias and prejudice.
Close friendship, being classmates, close door neighbor are not grounds
unless these benefited the litigant / lawyer from his personal relations
with the judge. Former clerk of court who testified in a formal matter is
not disqualified
SEC. 6. A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of withdrawing
from the proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of disqualification.
If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers, independently of the
judge’s participation, all agree in writing that the reason for the inhibition
is immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge may then participate in the
proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be
incorporated in the record of the proceedings.
Waiver. Strictly construed.
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a judge.
Judge who is a professor cannot violate confidentiality of pending
administrative cases in the guise as an example as to how a judge should
not be.
Judge cannot invoke academic freedom in classroom where the daughter
of a fellow judge is his student.
Judge was acquitted in a bigamy case filed by one who is not a party but
cannot escape Code of Judicial Conduct
Presh 16
Heck vs. Santos (467 Phil. 789)
Case is imprescriptible
Can be filed by one who is not a party
Case is “one of a kind” (sui generis).
Receiving allowance from local government at a time judge was
suspended
In Miller vs. Miller, Aug. 28, 2019, the SC considered the Memorandum in
a Special Proceedings Case an administrative complaint against the judge
Even if the charge was not specifically alleged in the complaint, the SC
considered it as a basis to sanction judge as long as it was included in the
evidence presented.
SEC. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
in all of their activities.
Self-laudatory proclamation, like being a bar topnotcher, graduate of a
“high standard university”, considering other “lower class”
Judge who retired from the judiciary was disbarred and was denied of all
retirement benefits for holding on to commercial cases despite the change
of his designation as a regular court (Judge, Jan. 28, 2020)
Judge has the discretion to determine the amount of bail (Farres vs. Judge,
Oct. 14, 2019).
Using the court room as residence
Using the court address as personal address by husband of judge
Poking a gun
Challenging lawyer to a fight
SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept
personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary
citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall
conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the
judicial office.
Going to gambling places / cockfight / casino
Being seen with a litigant in a motel even if no evidence of sexual
relations
Arriving court on Tuesday and going home of Thursday
Demanding the release of prisoner in the police custody
Soliciting money or property
Cultivating “utang na loob” in the election of the PJA, like making
reservcations in
Hotels and resturants
Sexual favors
Asking / obtaining loans from litigants / filing fees in court
Accepting position in the Peace and Order Council
Violating the prohibition of absolute disqualification to practice law in
private capacity
SALN ????????
SEC. 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations with individual members of
the legal profession who practice regularly in their court, avoid situations
which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of
favoritism or partiality.
Engaging of excessive friendliness like inviting lawyer to eat lunch /
drinking spree / Playing golf during office hours
Discourteous to litigants and lawyers
SEC. 4. Judges shall not participate in the determination of a case in which
any member of their family represents a litigant or is associated in any
manner with the case.
Executive Judge handled the application for notary public of his wife
Justice who was the chair in the bar examination with a nephew (third
civil degree relations) as an examinee
Presh 17
SEC. 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their residence by a member of
the legal profession to receive clients of the latter or of other members of
the legal profession.
SEC. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of
expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights,
they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the
dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the
judiciary.
Partisan political activities
Attending / being invited in a proclamation rally
“Putang ina” , “putris” are improper even if it is a favorite expression
Use of improper, insensitive, irrelevant, immaterial and insulting language
or words such as, “moronic”, “idiot”, “big dick”, “Baklita”, etc in the
Order (Anonymous vs. Judge, March 2, 2020)
Egotistical title should not be used by the judge, like “Ph.D”, “Dr.”
(Anonymous vs. Judge, March 2, 2020)
In OCA Circular 173, the Supreme Court directed all judges and court
personnel to be watchful when sharing photographs and views or
comments in social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
In communicating and socializing through social networks, judges must
bear in mind that what they communicate — regardless of whether it is a
personal matter or part of his or her judicial duties—creates and
contributes to the people’s opinion not just of the judge but of the entire
judiciary of which he or she is a part.”
 SEC. 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary and
financial interests and shall make reasonable efforts to be informed about
the financial interests of members of their family.
Litigants are incorporators of a corporation. Judge makes reasonable
effort.
SEC. 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to
advance their private interests, or those of a member of their family or of
anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the
impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence
them in the performance of judicial duties.
Writing a recommendatory letter in behalf of another / using letter head
to introduce another
SEC. 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in their judicial
capacity shall not be used or disclosed for any other purpose (not) related
to their judicial duties.
SEC. 10. Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, judges may
(a) Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities concerning the law,
the legal system, the administration of justice or related matters;
(b) Appear at a public hearing before an official body concerned with
matters relating to the law, the legal system, the administration of justice
or related matters;
(c) Engage in other activities if such activities do not detract from the
dignity of the judicial office or otherwise interfere with the performance of
judicial duties.
SEC. 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial office.
SEC. 12. Judges may form or join associations of judges or participate in
other organizations representing the interests of judges.
Presh 18
SEC. 13. Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor
accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to
be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the
performance of judicial duties.
SEC. 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to
their influence, direction or authority, to ask for, or accept, any gift,
bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or
omitted to be done in connection with their duties or functions.
SEC. 15. Subject to law and to any legal requirements of public disclosure,
judges may receive a token gift, award or benefit as appropriate to the
occasion on which it is made, provided that such gift, award or benefit
might not reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in
the performance of judicial duties or otherwise give rise to an appearance
of partiality.
CANON 5
EQUALITY
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the
due performance of the judicial office.
SEC. 1. Judges shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society and
differences arising from various sources, including but not limited to race,
color, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status,
sexual orientation, social and economic status and other like causes.
SEC. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or
conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.
SEC. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration
for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and
judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground,
immaterial to the proper performance of such duties.
SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to
his or her influence, direction or control to differentiate between persons
concerned, in a matter before the judge, on any irrelevant ground.
SEC. 5. Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to
refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on
irrelevant grounds, except such as are legally relevant to an issue in
proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate advocacy.
CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of
judicial office.
Judges should know their duties is solemnizing marriages (Tupal vs. Judge,
MTCC, Bacolod City, Feb. 24, 2014).
Gross ignorance of the law
Ignorance of pre-trial, delay, forcing litigants to compromise (Elgar vs. J, Feb.
4, 2020).
The Supreme Court declared that an administrative complaint is not the
appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular
where a judicial remedy exists and is available. The acts of a judge in his
judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. A judge cannot be
civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official acts, no matter
how erroneous, provided he acts in good faith. It is only after the available
judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have
spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil, or
administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed.
A judge who was the subject of an unfair administrative case can file a
counter charge against the complainant.
Presh 19
SEC. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other
activities.
SEC. 2. Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties,
which include not only the performance of judicial functions and
responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks
relevant to the judicial office or the court’s operations.
SEC. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their
knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper
performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the
training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial
control, to judges.
SEC. 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant
developments of international law, including international conventions
and other instruments establishing human rights norms.
SEC. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
SEC. 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before
the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants,
witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official
capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal representatives,
court staff and others subject to their influence, direction or control.
HOW SHOULD A JUDGE TREAT LAWYERS, WITNESSES AND LITIGANTS?
It is reprehensible for a judge to humiliate a lawyer, litigant or witness.
The act betrays lack of patience, prudence and restraint. Thus, a judge
must at all times be temperate in his language. He must choose his words,
written or spoken, with utmost care and sufficient control. The wise and
just man is esteemed for his discernment. Pleasing speech increases his
persuasiveness.
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN LITIGATION?
Equanimity and judiciousness should be the constant marks of a dispenser
of justice. A judge should always keep his passion guarded. He can never
allow it to run loose and overcome his reason. He descends to the level of
a sharp-tongued, ill-mannered petty tyrant when he utters harsh words,
snide remarks or sarcastic comments. As a result, he degrades the judicial
office and erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
Against this backdrop, respondent judge indeed appears arrogant and
boastful not only in the eyes of the anonymous complainant but also to
the lawyers who practice in his sala. He revealed a hint of arrogance in his
comment when he professed exasperation over minor procedural
mistakes  or even negligible lapses (such as the confusion in the use of
"collaborate" and "corroborate"). He also displayed a condescending
attitude toward lawyers in the provinces when he implied that they were
"inferior" to lawyers from Manila. As a judge, he should ensure that his
conduct is always above reproach and perceived to be so by a reasonable
observer. He must never show conceit or even an appearance thereof, or
any kind of impropriety.
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF LAWYERS?
The dispensation of justice is a joint responsibility of the judge and the
lawyer. A sense of shared responsibility which is a crucial factor in the
administration of justice is expected of them. They should co-exist in a
spirit of cooperation and mutual respect, not animosity and derision.
Respondent judge antagonized the lawyers (private practitioners, public
attorneys and public prosecutors alike) appearing in his sala by his
perceived arrogance and insulting remarks. Consequently, he impaired the
administration of justice.
CAN JUDGES INTERVENE IN PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE?
Respondent judge unduly intervened in the presentation of evidence. He
asked more questions than counsel and conducted direct and cross-
examination of witnesses.
While a judge may properly intervene in a trial of a case to promote
expedition and prevent unnecessary waste of time, or to clear up some
obscurity, nevertheless, he should bear in mind that his undue
interference, impatience, or participation in the examination of witnesses,
or a severe attitude on his part toward witnesses, especially those who are
excited or terrified by the unusual circumstances of trial, may tend to
Presh 20
prevent the proper presentation of the cause, or the ascertainment of the
truth in respect thereto.
JUDGES NORMALLY CALL LAWYERS TO APPROACH THE BENCH:
Conversation between the judge and counsel in court is often necessary,
but the judge should be studious to avoid controversies which are apt to
obscure the merits of the dispute between litigants and lead to its unjust
disposition. In addressing counsel, litigants or witnesses, he should avoid a
controversial tone.
He should avoid interruptions of counsel in their arguments except to
clarify his mind as to their positions, and he should not be tempted to an
unnecessary display of learning or a premature judgment.
LIMITATION IN ASKING QUESTIONS
A judge may properly intervene in the presentation of evidence to
expedite and prevent unnecessary waste of time and clarify obscure and
incomplete details in the course of the testimony of the witness or
thereafter. Questions designed to clarify points and to elicit additional
relevant evidence are not improper. But the judge should limit himself to
asking clarificatory questions and the power should be sparingly and
judiciously used. The rule is that the court should stay out of it as much as
possible, neither interfering nor intervening in the conduct of the trial. A
judge must always maintain cold neutrality and impartiality for he is a
magistrate, not an advocate.
SEC. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent
discharge of judicial duties.
DEFINITIONS
In this Code, unless the context otherwise permits or requires, the
following meanings shall be attributed to the words used:
“Court staff” includes the personal staff of the judge including law clerks.
“Judge” means any person exercising judicial power, however designated.
“Judge’s family” includes a judge’s spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law,
daughter-inlaw, and any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the sixth civil degree, or person who is a companion or employee of the
judge and who lives in the judge’s household.
This Code, which shall hereafter be referred to as the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, supersedes the Canons of Judicial
Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct heretofore applied in the
Philippines to the extent that the provisions or concepts therein are
embodied in this Code: Provided, however, that in case of deficiency or
absence of specific provisions in this New Code, the Canons of Judicial
Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct shall be applicable in a suppletory
character.
This New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary shall take
effect on the first day of June 2004, following its publication not later than
15 May 2004 in two newspapers of large circulation in the Philippines to
ensure its widest publicity.
Promulgated this 27th day of April 2004. The Code took effect on June 1,
2004.
[A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC.September 17, 2002]
RE:AUTOMATIC CONVERSION OF SOME ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST
JUSTICES OF THE CA & THE SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court
dated 17 SEPT 2002.
A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC(Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative
Cases Against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan;
Judges of Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers
Presh 21
as Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both as Such Officials and as
Members of the Philippine Bar.)
Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan; judges of regular and special courts; and court officials who
are lawyers are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the
disciplinary action of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer's Oath,
the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional
Ethics, or for such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been
traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.
In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also be
considered a disciplinary action against the respondent Justice, judge or
court official concerned as a member of the Bar. The respondent may
forthwith be 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.
This Resolution shall supplement Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and shall
take effect on the first day of October 2002. It shall apply to administrative
cases already filed where the respondents have not yet been required to
comment on the complaints.
EN BANC
[ A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138, August 05, 2009 ]
SAMSON VS. JUDGE, RTC Cabanatuan.
This is an administrative complaint for dishonesty and falsification of a
public document against the judge when he did not disclose his pending
administrative case when he applied and interviewed by the JBC as RTC
Judge.
The SC held that the making of untruthful statements in the PDS amounts to
dishonesty and falsification of an official document. Dishonesty, being in the
nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the
service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits,
and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government
service.
This administrative case against respondent shall also be considered as a
disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the Bar.
SC Justices can only be removed by impeachment.
Judges must comment on the complaint and show cause why he should
not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as a
member of the Bar. Judgment in both respects may be incorporated in one
decision or resolution. 
Administrative cases against judges are violations of the fundamental
tenets of judicial conduct embodied in the new Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary, the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of
Judicial Ethics and the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL
PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful act.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION...
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.
Rule 10.01 - a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any
artifice.
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.
Since membership in the bar is an integral qualification for membership in
the bench, the moral fitness of a judge also reflects his moral fitness as a
Presh 22
lawyer. A judge who disobeys the basic rules of judicial conduct also violates
his oath as a lawyer.  ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE OFELIA M. D.
In this particular case, respondent's dishonest act was against the lawyer's
oath to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court."
Respondent Judge was removed and disbarred.
ANOTHER CASE
Complainant and the respondent judge were friends. Complainant charged
Judge with grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, grave coercion,
dishonesty, harassment, oppression and violation of Article 215 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) and the Canons of Judicial Ethics. The complaint
alleged, among others, that respondent judge tried to sell a dilapidated
cargo pick-up truck and Daewoo car to complainant. Their friendship later
on turned sour when they failed to reach an agreement on the commission
respondent judge was supposed to receive as agent-broker for the
contemplated sale of complainant's beach lot.
Respondent judge denied the charge. He commented that he never owned
a dilapidated cargo pick-up truck and a Daewoo car. However, a perusal of
respondent's Statements of Assets and Liabilities for the years 1998-2001
revealed that among his personal properties were a Daewoo car and an L-
200 double cab.
The SC removed respondent judge and considered administrative case as
disciplinary proceedings for disbarment as well. The SC stripped him of his
membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 7253, February 18, 2020 ]
ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, COMPLAINANT, VS ATTY. OFELIA M. D.
ARTUZ,*  RESPONDENT.
[A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 07-1911-MTJ)]
ARTUZ, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 5, ILOILO CITY,
ILOILO, RESPONDENT.
Complainant alleged that when respondent was still a prosecutor, she (1)
falsely and maliciously imputed a crime against him; (2) maliciously filed
criminal cases against him, along with others, before the Department of
Justice (DOJ), which were intended clearly to harass, annoy, vex, and
humiliate them; and (3) maligned her former superior. During the pendency
of the case, respondent was appointed and subsequently took her Oath of
Office as Presiding Judge.
Respondent was removed as a judge because she failed to indicate that she
has a pending administrative case in the DOJ when she applied as in the
judiciary. The SC found respondent judge guilty of Grave Misconduct,
Dishonesty, and Falsification in connection her acts as a prosecutor. Based
on the same ground, she was also disbarred.
What was the ground for the removal of respondent judge and her
disbarment as a lawyer?
In her Order as a prosecutor she stated: Complainant should not compare
me to the barbaric, nomadic and outrageous attitude he had
displayed when he kicked somebody while his otherwise barbaric, nomadic
and outrageous father would punch another in his eyes which I have seen
with my own two eyes at the Lobby of the Hall of Justice; he should not
boldly display his bad manners and wrong conduct and arrogance in this
Office, by virtue of his being the godson of the City Prosecutor, among
others.
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Presh 23
Case law instructs that "lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and
other lawyers with courtesy, dignity, and civility. A great part of their
comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon their relations
with their professional brethren. Since they deal constantly with each other,
they must treat one another with trust and respect. 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."

An RTC judge in Makati was dismissed for an act he committed when he

was still the mayor of Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte before he was
appointed to the judiciary. The Sandiganbayan convicted him for violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The was the ground in disbarring
him as a lawyer.

Another RTC judge of Makati was removed for gross ignorance of the law
and gross misconduct when he granted probation to the 2 accused who
were originally charged with murder but were convicted of homicide.
Moreover, the judge credited them with 2 mitigating circumstances of self-
defense and voluntary surrender even if there was no evidence presented
and were never invoked by the accused. Homicide is punishable by reclusion
temporal (12 years and one day to 20 years). The accused applied for
probation. The judge ruled that with two mitigating circumstances (even if
not invoked) merited the approval of the application for probation (not
more than 6 years imprisonment).

Another Makati RTC Judge was dismissed due to her failure to report
marriages she solemnized. Her report shows that from November 2005 to
March 2007, she did not solemnize any marriage despite issuing 1,068
marriage certificates during the period.

Presh 24