PALE 2021: JUDGE MY CABUAG
MODULE 1 The practice of law is a "privilege
A. Ethics and Practice of law
DOMINADOR P. BURBE VS. ATTY. ALBERTO C.
MAGULTA
Issue: Is there an existing lawyer-client relationship
between parties despite the non-payment of law
services rendered?
A lawyer-client relationship was established
from the very first moment complainant asked
respondent for legal advice regarding the former's
business. It is not necessary that any retainer be
paid, promised, or charged; neither is it material that
the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the
case for which his service had been sought..
Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists
notwithstanding the close personal relationship
between the lawyer and the complainant or the
nonpayment of the former's fees.
EFIGENIA M. TENOSO  v. ATTY. ANSELMO S.
ECHANEZ
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of
engaging in practice as a notary public without
having been properly commissioned.
Time and again, this Court emphasizes that the
practice of law is imbued with public interest and that
"a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his
client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the
courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the
most important functions of the State - the
administration of justice - as an officer of the court."
Accordingly, '"lawyers are bound to maintain not only
a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing." Similarly,
the duties of notaries public are dictated by public
policy and impressed with public
interest. "Notarization is not a routinary, meaningless
act, for notarization converts a private document to a
public instrument, making it admissible in evidence
without the necessity of preliminary proof of its
authenticity and due execution."
In misrepresenting himself as a notary public,
respondent exposed party-litigants, courts, other
lawyers and the general public to the perils of
ordinary documents posing as public
instruments..A.C. No. 5377               June
VICTOR C. LINGAN vs. ATTYS. ROMEO
CALUBAQUIB and JIMMY P. BALIGA.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Baliga's motion to lift order of
suspension should be granted
Practice of law is "any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience." It
includes "performing acts which are characteristics
of the legal profession" or "rendering any kind of
service which requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill." Work in government that
requires the use of legal knowledge is considered
practice of law.
BCWR Page 1 of 6
burdened with conditions." To enjoy the
privileges of practicing law, lawyers must
"[adhere] to the rigid standards of mental fitness,
maintain the highest degree of morality, and
faithfully comply with the rules of the legal
profession."
B. Admission to the practice of Law
MERCURIA D. SO v. MA. LUCILLE P. LEE
issue: whether lee should be allowed to
retake the lawyer's oath and sign the roll of
attorneys.
SEC. 2. Requirements for all applicants for
admission to the bar. - Every applicant for admission
as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good
moral character, and a resident of the Philippines,
and must produce before the Supreme Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and
that no charges against him, involving moral
turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court
in the Philippines.
Moral turpitude has been defined as an act of
baselessness, vileness, or the depravity of private
and social duties that man owes to his fellow man or
society in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man and
woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty or good morals.
Jurisprudence had deemed the following acts as
crimes involving moral turpitude: abduction with
consent, bigamy, concubinage, smuggling, rape,
attempted bribery, profiteering, robbery, murder,
estafa, theft, illicit sexual relations with a fellow
worker, issuance of bouncing checks, intriguing
against honor, violation of the Anti-Fencing Law,
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, perjury, forgery,
direct bribery, frustrated homicide, adultery, arson,
evasion of income tax, barratry, blackmail, bribery,
duelling, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel,
making fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract,
mutilation of public records, fabrication of evidence,
offenses against pension laws, perjury, seduction
under the promise of marriage, falsification of public
document, and estafa through falsification of public
document.
As such, the pendency of a civil case alone
should not be a deterrent for successful Bar
examinees to take their Lawyer's Oath and to sign the
Roll of Attorneys especially since not all charges or
cases involve acts evincing moral turpitude.
IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE BAR MATTER NO.
1209 LAWYER'S OATH
Issue: Whether or not the petition of CAESAR Z.
DISTRITO to be allowed to take the oath as member
of the Philippine Bar and to sign the Roll of Attorneys
shall be granted
 PALE 2021: JUDGE MY CABUAG
The petitioner, in so doing, violated Rule 7.02
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
requires of every applicant candor and truthfulness.
Every applicant is duty bound to lay before the Court
all his involvement in any criminal case, pending or
otherwise terminated, to enable the Court to fully
ascertain or determine the applicant's moral
character. The petitioner should have realized the
implication of any omission on his part, even if
inadvertently made.
An applicant for the admission to the bar who
made a false statement in his application is not of
good moral character. The concealment or
withholding from the court of the fact that an applicant
has been charged with or indicated for an alleged
crime is a ground for disqualification of the applicant
to take the bar examination, or for revocation of the
license to practice, if he has already been admitted to
the bar.
in the matter of the disqualification of bar
examinee haron s. meling in the 2002 bar
examinations and for disciplinary action as
member of the philippine sharia bar, atty. froilan r.
melendrez,
ISSUE: Should Meling be disqualified to take the
Lawyers Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys?
By concealing the existence of such cases,
the applicant then flunks the test of fitness even if the
cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or
insufficient to impugn or affect the good moral
character of the applicant.
Meling’s concealment of the fact that there are
three (3) pending criminal cases against him speaks
of his lack of the requisite good moral character
and results in the forfeiture of the privilege bestowed
upon him as a member of the Sharia Bar.
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE v. EDWIN L. RANA
Issue: Whether Rana does not deserve admission to
the Philippine bar.
It is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that
finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that
Rana passed the bar examinations is immaterial.
Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law. Rana should know that
two essential requisites for
In re: Petition to sign in the Roll of Attorneys by
Michael Medado
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner may be
allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
petitioner demonstrated good faith and good
moral character when he finally filed the instant
Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. We note that
it was not a third party who called this Court’s
attention to petitioner’s omission; rather, it was
Medado himself who acknowledged his own lapse,
albeit after the passage of more than 30 years. For
another, petitioner has not been subject to any action
for disqualification from the practice of law,which is
more than what we can say of other individuals who
were successfully admitted as members of the
Philippine Bar. For this Court, this fact demonstrates
that petitioner strove to adhere to the strict
BCWR Page 2 of 6
requirements of the ethics of the profession, and that
he has prima facie shown that he possesses the
character required to be a member of the Philippine
Bar. Finally, Medado appears to have been a
competent and able legal practitioner, having held
various positions. All these demonstrate Medado’s
worth to become a full-fledged member of the
Philippine Bar.
While an honest mistake of fact could be used
to excuse a person from the legal consequences of
his acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake
of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification,
because everyone is presumed to know the law and
its consequences. 
C. Lawyers are not infallible
DENNIS M. MAGUSARA v. ATTY. LOUIE A.
RASTICA
ATTY. RAYMUND P. PALAD v. LOLIT SOLIS
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court
provides:
Section 18. Confidentiality. 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.
The confidential nature of the proceedings has
a three-fold purpose, to wit: (i) to enable the court and
the investigator to make the investigation free from
any extraneous influence or interference; (ii) to
protect the personal and professional reputation of
attorneys from baseless charges of disgruntled,
vindictive and irresponsible persons or clients by
prohibiting the publication of such charges pending
their resolution; and (iii) to deter the press from
publishing the charges or proceedings based thereon.
We held that malicious and unauthorized
publication or verbatim reproduction of administrative
complaints against lawyers in newspapers by editors
and/or reporters may be actionable. Such premature
publication constitutes a contempt of court
JOSEPH C. CHUA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, RESPONDENT.
Under the CPR, every lawyer is required to
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Although the same contributed to the delay,
the same was exercised by Atty. De Castro in good
faith and in keeping with his duty to represent his
client with zeal within the bounds of the law. Clearly,
Atty. De Castro was merely advocating for his client's
interest.
Notwithstanding the absence of malice, dishonesty,
or ill motive, it is good to remind Atty. De Castro that
as a member of the Bar, he is expected to exert every
effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice and to be more
circumspect whenever seeking the postponements of
cases.
Enrique Javier de Zuzuarregui v Anthony d
Zuzuarregui
The dismissal of all the other criminal charges against
respondent, coupled with various certificates of good
moral character in his favor is sufficient for the Court
 PALE 2021: JUDGE MY CABUAG
to conclude that respondent possesses the moral
qualifications required of lawyers.
RANDY N. SEGURA v. PROSECUTOR MARILOU R.
GARACHICO-FABILA
jurisdiction over administrative cases against
government lawyers relating to acts committed in the
performance of their official functions, lies with the
Ombudsman which exercises administrative
supervision over them
In his complaint, complainant imputes to
respondent manifest bias and partiality in the conduct
of the preliminary investigation and issuance of the
Resolution which recommended the filing of a criminal
case against him. The acts complained of arose from
respondent's performance or discharge of official
duties as a public prosecutor. Hence, the authority to
investigate and discipline respondent exclusively
pertains to her superior, the Secretary of Justice. The
authority may also pertain to the Office of the
Ombudsman which similarly exercises disciplinary
jurisdiction over public prosecutors as public officials
pursuant to Section 15, paragraph 1, of R.A. No.
6770.17 Indeed, respondent's accountability as an
official performing or discharging her official duties is
always to be differentiated from her accountability as
a member of the Philippine Bar.18 For this reason,
the IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate respondent
as such government lawyer.
MODULE 2
EUFEMIA A. CAMINO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
RYAN REY L. PASAGUI, RESPONDENT.
Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, provides that "[a] lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct." It is well established that a lawyer's
conduct is "not confined to the performance of his
professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for
misconduct committed either in his professional
or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders
him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
"Unlawful" conduct does not necessarily imply
the element of criminality although the concept is
broad enough to include such element. To be
"dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat,
deceive, defraud or betray; be unworthy; lacking in
integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle,
fairness and straight-forwardness, while conduct that
is "deceitful" means the proclivity for fraudulent
and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device
that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true
facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party
imposed upon.
 
In addition:
He also violated Canon 16 of the CPR, which states
that "[a] lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his
possession."
 
BCWR Page 3 of 6
A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to delay
any man for money or malice and is bound to conduct
himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He is
obligated to report promptly the money of his client
that has come into his possession. He should not
commingle it with his private property or use it for
his personal purposes without his client's consent.
When a lawyer collects or receives money from his
client for a particular purpose (
ANITA C. PENA vs. ATTY. CHRISTINA C.
PATERNO 
DECEITFUL CONDUCT COMMITTED: The
failure of respondent to fulfill her duty as notary public
to submit her notarial and a copy of the said Deed of
Sale that was notarized by her on the same month is
cause for revocation of her commission under Section
249 of the Notarial Law. Lawyers commissioned as
notaries public are mandated to discharge with
fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties
being dictated by public policy and impressed
with public interest. 
EDGARDO AREOLA v. ATTY. MARIA VILMA
MENDOZA
Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule
1.02 that "a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system." Rule 15.07 states
that "a lawyer shall impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and the principles of
fairness." Atty. Mendoza’s improper advice only
lessens the confidence of the public in our legal
system. It must be remembered that a lawyer’s duty
is not to his client but to the administration of
justice. 
MANUEL ENRIQUE L. ZALAMEA, AND MANUEL
JOSE L. ZALAMEA, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY.
RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN,
Under Article 1491 of the Civil Code, lawyers
are prohibited to acquire by purchase, even at a
public or judicial auction, either in person or through
the mediation of another, their client's property and
rights in litigation. 
  Canon 17 states that a lawyer owes fidelity to
the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him, while Canon 16
provides that "a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his
possession." 
VERLITA V. MERCULLO and RAYMOND VEDANO,
vs. ATTY. MARIE FRANCESE RAMON, 
The respondent's conduct patently breached
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides:
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
conduct.
 PALE 2021: JUDGE MY CABUAG
Evil intent was not essential in order to bring the
unlawful act or omission of the respondent within the
coverage of Rule 1. 01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The Code exacted from her not only a
firm respect for the law and legal processes but also
the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in
dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted by
them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.
ELADIO D. PERFECTO v. JUDGE ALMA
CONSUELO D. ESIDERA
This court, in resolving cases that touch on issues
of morality, is bound to remain neutral and to limit
the bases of its judgment on secular moral
standards. This court may not sit as judge of what is
moral according to a particular religion. We have
jurisdiction over matters of morality only insofar
as it involves conduct that is of public interest.
ALFRED LEHNERT, Complainant, v. ATTY. DENNIS
L. DIÑO, Respondent.
lawyers must at all times faithfully perform
their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and
to their clients. As part of those duties, they must
promptly pay their financial obligations. Their
conduct must always reflect the values and norms of
the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It is equally disturbing
that respondent remorselessly issued a series of
worthless checks, unmindful of the deleterious
effects of such act to public interest and public
order.
This Court continues to state that the issuance of
worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct
and violates Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which mandates all members of the
bar "to obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law." Issuance of worthless checks also
violates Rule 1.01 of the Code, which mandates that
"[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
B. Duties to the Legal Profession
Tapay v. Bancolo
Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides: 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.
The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very
least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law
is founded on public interest and policy. The purpose
is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the
bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those
unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the
disciplinary control of the Court.
SAMUEL B. ARNADO, v. ATTY. HOMOBONO A.
ADAZA
BCWR Page 4 of 6
Bar Matter No. 850 requires members of the
IBP to undergo continuing legal education "to ensure
that throughout their career, they keep abreast with
law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the
profession and enhance the standards of the practice
of law."
MARIA VICTORIA G. BELO-HENARES v. ATTY.
ROBERTO "ARGEE" C. GUEVARRA
"Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct
committed in their private capacity, as long as their
misconduct reflects their want of probity or good
demeanor, a good character being an essential
qualification for the admission to the practice of law
and for continuance of such privilege.
HEIRS OF JUAN DE DIOS E. CARLOS, v. ATTY.
JAIME S. LINSANGAN
Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code which forbids
lawyers from acquiring, by purchase or assignment,
the property that has been the subject of litigation in
which they have taken part by virtue of their
profession. Canon I of the CPR is clear in requiring
that "a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal process" and Rule 138, Sec. 3 which requires
every lawyer to take an oath to "obey the laws as well
as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein." Here, the law transgressed by Atty.
Linsangan is Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, in
violation of his lawyer's oath.
Canon 16 of the CPR. Indeed, a lawyer is not
entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client's money
for himself by the mere fact that the client owes him
attorneys fees. 
MODULE 2 C and B
RE: LETTER DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2005 OF
ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA.
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 11.03 - 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 having no
materiality to the case.
While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of
his client, full devotion to his client's genuine interest
and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
client's rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost
learning and ability, he must do so only within the
bounds of the law. A lawyer is entitled to voice his
criticism within the context of the constitutional
guarantee of freedom of speech which must be
exercised responsibly. After all, every right carries
 PALE 2021: JUDGE MY CABUAG
with it the corresponding obligation. Freedom is not
freedom from responsibility, but freedom with
responsibility. The lawyer's fidelity to his client must
not be pursued at the expense of truth and orderly
administration of justice. It must be done within the
confines of reason and common sense. ll
As officer of the court, Atty. Sorreda has the duty to
uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and to
promote confidence in the fair administration of
justice.
FRANCISCO GALMAN CRUZ v.  JUSTICE PORTIA
ALIÑO-HORMACHUELOS
A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, "like the
court itself, an instrument or agency to advance
the ends of justice." His duty is to uphold the
dignity and authority of the courts to which he
owes fidelity, "not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice." Faith in the courts a
lawyer should seek to preserve. For, to undermine
the judicial edifice "is disastrous to the continuity
of government and to the attainment of the
liberties of the people." Thus has it been said of a
lawyer that "[a]s an officer of the court, it is his
sworn and moral duty to help build and not
destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and
regard towards the courts so essential to the
proper administration of justice. It is frivolous,
calculated merely to harass, annoy, and cast a
groundless aspersion on respondents integrity and
reputation.
Samonte v. Atty. Jumamil,
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.
The Code provides that a "lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language that is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper." Lawyers are
instructed to be gracious and must use such words as
may be properly addressed by one gentleman to
another. Our language is rich with expressions that
are emphatic but respectful, convincing but not
derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.
VIDAYLIN YAMON-LEACH V. ATTY. ARTURO B.
ASTORGA
He is guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code. Any act or omission that is contrary to, or
prohibited or unauthorized by, or in defiance of,
disobedient to, or disregards the law is unlawful.
Unlawful conduct does not necessarily imply the
element of criminality although the concept is
broad enough to include such element. To be
dishonest means the disposition to lie, cheat,
deceive, defraud, or betray; be unworthy; lacking
in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle,
fairness, and straightforwardness, while conduct
that is deceitful means the proclivity for
fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation,
artifice or device that is used upon another who is
BCWR Page 5 of 6
ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and
damage of the party imposed upon.
GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT: A lawyer may be
disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath, a
patent disregard of his duties, or an odious
deportment unbecoming of an attorney. A lawyer
must at no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber,
which are not only conditions precedent to his
entrance to the Bar but are, likewise, essential
demands for his continued membership in it.
ARELLANO UNIVERSITY, INC. v. ATTY.
LEOVIGILDO H. MIJARES III
Every lawyer has the responsibility to protect and
advance the interests of his client such that he must
promptly account for whatever money or property his
client may have entrusted to him. As a mere trustee
of said money or property, he must hold them
separate from that of his own and make sure that
they are used for their intended purpose. If not used,
he must return the money or property immediately to
his client upon demand, otherwise the lawyer shall be
presumed to have misappropriated the same in
violation of the trust reposed on him.4 A lawyer’s
conversion of funds entrusted to him is a gross
violation of professional ethics.5
AMPARO BUENO vs. ATTY. RAMON A. RAÑESES
Canon 13 of the CPR – the rule that instructs lawyers
to refrain from any impropriety tending to influence, or
from any act giving the appearance of influencing, the
court. The respondent lawyer therein was suspended
from the practice of law for one year.
SPS. JACINTO V. ATTY. BANGOT
A lawyer shall observe candor, honesty and fairness
in dealing with the client, and shall only charge fair
and reasonable fees for his legal services. In drawing
up the terms of his professional engagement, he
should not practice deceit. The clients are entitled to
rescind the written agreement for his professional
services if the terms thereof contravened the true
agreement of the parties.” 
BALINGIT V. ATTY. CERVANTES
Rule 20.4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
advises that xxx A lawyer shall avoid controversies
with clients concerning their compensation and to
resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice or fraud. xxx It is improper for a lawyer to
impose additional professional fees on his client that
were never mentioned nor agreed upon the time of
the engagement of his services.
SPS. MONTECILLO AND SALONOY V ATTY.
GATCHALIAN
 PALE 2021: JUDGE MY CABUAG BCWR Page 6 of 6

Every lawyer is duty-bound to serve his clients with

utmost diligence and competence, and never neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him. A lawyer owes fidelity
to the clients' cause and, accordingly is expected to
exercise the required degree of diligence in handling
their affairs. Consequently, he is expected to maintain
at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to
devote one's full attention, skill, and competence to
the case, whether it is accepted for a fee or for free. 
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
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.
Jurisprudence provides that the lawyer's duties of
competence and diligence include not merely
reviewing cases or giving sound legal advice, but also
consist of properly representing a client before any
court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings and
conferences, preparing and filing the required
pleadings, prosecuting handled cases with
reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination
without waiting for the client or the court to prod him
to do so. A lawyer's negligence in fulfilling these
duties subjects him to disciplinary action.