SOURCES OF LEGAL ETHICS

1. LAWYER’S OATH

2. REVISED PENAL CODE- ARTICLE 209

3. CIVIL SERVICE RULE- ARTICLE 12 SECTION 18

4. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (CPR)- SECTION 90

5. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (RA NO. 7160)

HISTORY OF LEGAL ETHICS

IN THE YEAR 1854, PENNSYLVANIA, LEGAL ETHICS, 56 CANONS, 1908

ORDER OF PRIORITY

PUBLIC

COURT

BAR

CLIENT

DISBARMENT IS IMPRESCRIPTABLE, THERE IS NO PRESCRIPTION PERIOD FOR THAT. DISBARMENT IS SUI

GENERIS, A CLASS OF ITS OWN. THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY COMPLAINANT. EVEN IF THERE IS NO
COMPLAINANT, THE DISBARMENT CASE WILL STILL PROSPER.

A LAWYER WHO IS ALSO A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, CANNOT PRACTICE LAW WITHOUT THE CONSENT
OF HIS HEAD OF OFFICE. DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST, HE CANNOT HANDLE CASES RELATED TO HIS
OFFICE.

THE NATURE OF LAWYER’S OATH IS A SOURCE OF OBLIGATION

LOZANO VERSUS MARTINEZ

PEOPLE VERSUS ATTY. TUANDA

VILLANUEVA VERSUS STA.ANA

TELESFORO A. DIAO VERSUS SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ

MAGDALUYO VERSUS NACE

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S DUTY IS NOT TO CONVICT BUT TO SEE THAT JUSTICE IS SERVED AND
DONE.

SILENT PARTNER IN THE PARTNERSHIP OF LAW IS NOT ALLOWED. IF YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED
DIRECTLY, YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED INDIRECTLY.

RAMOS VERSUS MANALAC

THE MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS ARE RESTRICTED IN THEIR PRACTICE OF LAW. THEY ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO APPEAR PERSONALLY APPEAR IN HEARINGS AND TRIAL SINCE THEY MIGHT INFLUENCE
THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTED CASE. THE RESTRICTION DOES NOT ONLY INCLUDE ACTUAL
APPEARANCE IN HEARINGS AND TRIALS, IT INCLUDES THE SIGNING IN PLEADINGS. THE ACTS THAT
THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO WERE THE REVIEW OF PLEADINGS; GIVE LEGAL ADVICE.

CUI VERSUS CUI

AGUIRRE VERSUS ATTY. RANA

THOSE WHO ARE PROHIBITED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES INCLUDE SUSPENDED AND
DISBARRED LAWYERS; FOREIGN LAWYERS UNLESS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO PRACTICE IN THE
PHILPPINES.

THOSE WHO ARE SUSPENDED TO PRACTICE LAW, HOWEVER, FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THIS
SANCTION, WILL BE CHARGED OF CONTEMPT OF COURT UNDER RULE 71

BRION VERSUS BRILLANTES

DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE HARON S. MELING

LEDA VERSUS TABANG

IN THE FILING OF APPLICATION TO TAKE THE BAR EXAMINATION, MUST DISCLOSE THEIR PENDING
CASES WHETHER THEY ARE THE PETITIONER OR RESPONDENT.

FLORIDO VERSUS FLORIDO

ENGR. LAO VERSUS ATTY. MEDEL

RIVERA VERSUS ATTY. CORRAL

DELOS REYES VERSUS AZNAR

FIGUEROA VERSUS BARRANCO

DISBARMENT CASE IS A SUI GENERIS, THE PRINCIPLE OF PARI DELICTO DOES NOT APPLY. THE
PRINCIPLE THAT THE ONE WHO GO TO THE COURT MUST BE OF A CLEAN HAND DOES NOT APPLY.
ANYONE CAN FILE A DISBARMENT CASE EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A FAULT ON HIS PART.

1. FORTUN AND QUINSAYAS CASE

2. (Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie

3. BAYOT CASE

Res ipsi quitor- the thing speaks of itself

Judge reyes case

Sui generis ang disbarment

Affidavit of desistance will not cancel THE disbarment. COMPLAINANT IS A MERE WITHNESS ONLY.

-Cayetano v. Monsod -Heck v. Santos -Villanueva v. Sta. Ana -Diao v. Martinez -Lozano v.
Martinez -Pp v. Tuanda -Magdaluyo v. Nace
Haron vs Milling Leda V Tabang