Summer Reviewer - Edited 2018

LEGAL ETHICS AND LEGAL FORMS
I. THE PRACTICE OF LAW……………….1

WHO MAY PRACTICE LAW?...................6
ADMISSION TO THE BAR........................6
CITIZENSHIP.............................................7
BAR EXAMINATIONS...............................8
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER...................8
HAZING, DEFINED....................................9
CRIMINAL LIABILITY................................9
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.....9
LEGAL ETHICS.......................................14
3. COURT (CANONS 10-13, CPR)......17
4. CLIENT (CANONS 14-22, CPR)......17
DUTY NOT TO ENGAGE IN UNLAWFUL CONDUCT 17
DUTY NOT TO COUNSEL ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES 18
DUTY NOT TO ENCOURAGE LAWSUITS19
DUTY TO ENCOURAGE AMICABLE SETTLEMENTS 19
EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT LEGAL SERVICES 19
A LAWYER CANNOT ADVERTISE HIS TALENT 20
WRITING LEGAL ARTICLES..................21
LAWYER SHALL NOT SEEK MEDIA PUBLICITY 21
LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE 22
NORMS OF CONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS 22
PARTICIPATING IN LEGAL DEVELOPMENT 24
PARTICIPATION IN LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAM 24
POWER TO INTEGRATE THE BAR........25
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INTEGRATION25
PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF IBP.25
NON-POLITICAL BAR.............................25
ELECTION OF NATIONAL OFFICERS. . .26
DELIBERATIVE BODY OF THE INTEGRATED BAR 27
CHAPTER GOVERNMENT......................27
GROSSLY IMMORAL ACT......................28
COMMISSION OF FRAUD OR FALSEHOOD 29
NEGOTIATION WITH THE OPPOSITE PARTY 31

INTERVENTION OF INTERMEDIARY NOT ALLOWED 32
LAWYER SHOULD DO NO FALSEHOOD33
RESPECT FOR COURTS AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS 34
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS..........34
OBEYING COURT ORDERS...................34
DEFENDING JUDGES FROM UNJUST CRITICISM 34
LAWYER SHALL APPEAR IN PROPER ATTIRE 35
LAWYER SHALL BE PUNCTUAL...........35
TEST TO DETERMINE FORUM SHOPPING 37
DUTY TO DISCLOSE PENDING CASE...37
SANCTIONS FOR WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE FORUM SHOPPING: 38
LAWYER SHALL NOT ABUSE COURT PROCESSES 39
LAWYER TO DISCOURAGE APPELLATE REVIEW 39
LAWYER SHALL NOT HARASS A WITNESS 39
LAWYER SHALL AVOID TESTIFYING FOR A CLIENT 39
SOME ACTS CONSIDERED IMPROPER40
SUB-JUDICE RULE.................................41
LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE 41
CONTEMPT.............................................41
DIRECT CONTEMPT (RULE 71, SEC.1, ROC) 41
INDIRECT CONTEMPT (RULE 71, SEC.3, ROC) 42
NATURE OF THE CLIENT-RELATIONSHIP42
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RELATIONSHIP: (PCF) 42
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.........................43
RELATIONSHIP AS STRICTLY PERSONAL 43
FEATURES..............................................43
ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.....43
SUFFICIENCY OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT 43
CONCEPT OF RETAINER.......................44
KINDS OF RETAINER AGREEMENTS:. .44
NECESSITY OF RETAINER....................44
WHO CAN EMPLOY (L-MAE-WB)..........44
SERVICES REGARDLESS OF A PERSON'S STATUS 45
WHAT IS COUNSEL DE OFFICIO?.........46
WHEN ASSIGNED; IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS 46

WHEN NOT ASSIGNED:.........................46
CHARACTERISTICS...............................47
VALID GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL.........47
EXCEPTIONS:.........................................47
DUTY TO PRESERVE THE CLIENT’S CONFIDENCE 48
CONFIDENTIALITY RULE.......................48
DURATION OF DUTY..............................49
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS.........50
FORM OR MODE OF COMMUNICATION51
PERSONS ENTITLED TO CLAIM PRIVILEGE 52
WHO ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE? 52
WHAT ARE PRIVILEGED MATTERS?....52
MATTERS NOT PRIVILEGED.................52
EFFECT OF BREACH.............................53
EXCEPTIONS TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE: 53
CLIENT’S WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE........53
WHO MAY WAIVE THE PRIVILEGE?.....53
HOW IS THE PRIVILEGE WAIVED?.......53
DISCLOSURE TO PROTECT ATTORNEY'S RIGHTS 53
COMMUNICATIONS AS TO CRIME........53
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.......................54
EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF RELATION 55
MATERIALITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 55
OPPOSING CLIENTS IN SAME OR RELATED SUITS 55
OPPOSING CLIENTS IN UNRELATED ACTIONS 56
NEW CLIENTS AGAINST FORMER CLIENT 56
CONFLICTING DUTIES...........................56
EXAMPLES OF CONFLICTING DUTIES:56
ATTORNEY'S INTEREST VS. CLIENT'S INTEREST 57
RULES APPLICABLE TO THE LAW FIRM57
WHERE CLIENTS KNOWINGLY CONSENT 58
DISCIPLINARY ACTION..........................58
CANDID AND HONEST ADVICE TO CLIENTS 58
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS....................59
DUTY NOT TO CO-MINGLE FUNDS.......59

DUTY TO DELIVER FUNDS....................59
REBATES AND COMMISSION................60
BORROWING OR LENDING...................60
DUTY NOT TO ACQUIRE CLIENT'S PROPERTY 61
ADEQUATE PROTECTION.....................61
NEGLIGENCE..........................................62
COLLABORATING COUNSEL................62
DUTY TO APPRISE CLIENT...................62
DUTY TO KEEP THE CLIENT FULLY INFORMED 62
USE OF FAIR AND HONEST MEANS....62
CLIENT’S FRAUD....................................63
PROCEDURE IN HANDLING CASES.....63
PREPARATION OF PLEADINGS............64
INTERVIEWING OF WITNESSES...........64
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.....65
NOTICE OF DEATH OF CLIENT.............65
REQUIRING CLERK OF COURT TO DO HIS DUTY 65
DILIGENCE IN HANDLING CASE...........66
FEES AS DAMAGES NOT RECOVERABLE 66
RIGHT OF PRIVATE COUNSEL, PRECONDITION 67
AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES DISCRETIONARY 67
PLEADING AND PRACTICE...................67
RIGHT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES...............67
WHO IS LIABLE FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES68
LIABILITY OF ASSIGNEE.......................68
LIABILITY IN LABOR CASES.................68
LIABILITY IN DERIVATIVE SUITS..........69
LIABILITY IN RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS 69
LIABILITY IN ESTATE PROCEEDINGS. .69
NON-LAWYER NOT ENTITLED TO FEES69
RIGHT OF COUNSEL DE OFFICIO TO FEES 70
WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL FROM THE CASE 70
REPRESENTATION OF ADVERSE INTERESTS 70
KINDS OF RETAINER.............................72
GENERAL RETAINER OR RETAINING FEE 72

SPECIAL RETAINER...............................72
VALIDITY OF CONTRACT......................72
EFFECT OF NULLITY OF CONTRACT...72
EFFECT OF UNCONSCIONABILITY OF AMOUNT72
AMOUNT FIXED IN A VALID CONTRACT76
FEES IN CASES OF REFERRAL............77
RETAINING LIEN.....................................78
NATURE AND ESSENCE – PASSIVE RIGHT TO RETAIN 78
PROPERTY TO WHICH LIEN ATTACHES78
WHEN LIEN ATTACHES..........................79
BOND FOR RETURN OF DOCUMENTS.79
EXTINGUISHMENT OF RETAINING LIEN79
SATISFACTION OF LIEN........................79
RECORD AND NOTICE OF LIEN............81
TO WHAT CHARGING LIEN ATTACHES 81
EFFECTS OF CHARGING LIEN..............81
EXTINGUISHMENT.................................82
ASSIGNMENT OF CHARGING LIEN......82
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT.............82
ENFORCEMENT......................................82
LAWYER’S APPLICATION TO PAY HIS FEES 83
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION...............83
REMEDIES IN ESTATE PROCEEDINGS 83
COURT JURISDICTION..........................84
NECESSITY OF HEARING......................84
DEFENSES..............................................84
EXECUTION............................................84
ATTORNEY’S FEES REFER TO.............84
GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE..................87
COMPLAINANT NEED NOT SUFFER INJURY 97
READMISSION TO BAR........................104
TOPICS UNDER THE SYLLABUS 107
E. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education 107
1. Purpose.................................107
2. Requirements........................107
3. Compliance...........................107
4. Exemptions...........................107
5. Sanctions..............................107
6. Bar Matter 2012 (Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service) 107
Powers..........................................116
II. JUDICIAL ETHICS.............................129
TOPICS UNDER THE SYLLABUS 151
C. Discipline of Members of the Judiciary 151
1. Members of the Supreme Court151
▪ Impeachment........................151
2. Lower court judges and justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan (Rule 140)...........151
III. PRACTICAL EXERCISES................176
I. THE PRACTICE OF LAW
TOPICS UNDER THE SYLLABUS

A. Practice of Law (Rule 138)

1. Concept
(a) Definition of the practice of law
(b) Practice of law is a privilege, not a
right
(c) Law as a profession, not a
business or trade
2. Qualifications for admission to the
Bar
(a) Bar Matter No. 1153, amending
Section 5 and 6 of Rule 138
3. Continuing requirements for
membership in the bar
(a) Good moral character
(b) Citizenship
i. Reacquisition of the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines
under R.A. No. 9225 or the
Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act of 2003r
4. Appearance of Non-Lawyers
(a) Law student practice rule (Rule
138-A)
(b) Non-lawyers in courts
(c) Non-lawyers in administrative
tribunals
(d) Proceedings where lawyers are
prohibited from appearing as
counsels
5. Sanctions for practice or appearance
without authority
(a) Lawyers without authority
(b) Persons who are not lawyers
6. Public officials and the practice of law
(a) Prohibition or disqualification of
former government attorneys
(b) Public officials who cannot practice
law or can practice law with
restrictions
7. Lawyers who are authorized to
represent government
8. Laywer’s Oath
CONCEPT
(a) Definition of the practice of law
Generally, to engage in the practice of law is to do any of those acts which are characteristic of
the legal profession (Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 10013, 1991, citing 111 ALR 23).
The practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience (Cayetano v. Monsod; most recently
reiterated in Arienda v. Monilla, A.M. No. P-11-2980, 2013) and calls for legal knowledge,
training, and experience for which a member of the bar has been prepared (Philippine Lawyer’s
Association v. Celedonio Agrava, G.R. No. L-12426, 1959).
What are some factors determinative of engaging in the practice of law? (HACA)
1. Habituality implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer
(People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-19450, 1965);
2. Attorney-client relationship;
3. Compensation implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active practice and
that his professional services are available to the public for compensation, as a source of his
livelihood or in consideration of his said services;
4. Application of law, legal principle, practice, or procedure calls for legal knowledge, training
and experience (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 38, 2009, citing Cayetano v. Monsod,
Padilla Dissenting opinion).
Regulation of the Practice of Law in the Philippines
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged (Philippine Constitution Art. VIII, Sec.
5, Par. 5).
It is the primary and inherent prerogative of the Supreme Court to render the ultimate decision
on who may be admitted and may continue in the practice of law according to existing rules. (In
Re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 554, 1954).
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in
cases prescribed by law (Philippine Constitution Art. XII, Sec. 14, Par.2).
Note: The power of Congress to legislate must be reconciled with the exclusive power of the Supreme
Court to promulgate rules regarding admission to the practice of law and the integrated bar.
Who may practice law?
Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in
accordance with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing. (Sec. 1,
Rule 138, Rules of Court hereinafter: ROC)
(b) Privilege
The practice of law is not a matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who
are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character
(Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 41, 2009).
(c) Profession, not Business
It is a profession, not business; it is an essential part in the administration of justice, a

profession in pursuit of which pecuniary reward is considered as merely incidental. It is not a
moneymaking venture (Jayme v. Bualan, G.R. No. 37386, 1933).
A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
(Rule 2.03, Code of Professional Responsibility hereinafter: CPR).
Law is a profession and not a trade. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other
things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, A.C.
No. L-1117, 1944).
What are the primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from a
business?
1. Duty of service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain the
highest eminence without making such money;
2. A relation as an 'Officer of court' to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the Highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A Relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness and unwillingness to
resort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice or
dealing with their clients. (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 13, 2009)
QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR (POSR-L):
1. Passed the Bar Examinations;

2. Taken an Oath before the Supreme Court;
3. Signed and registered in the Roll of Attorneys; and,
4. Received a certificate of License to practice law from the Clerk of Court of the Supreme
Court (Rule 138, Sections 17 and 18, ROC).
Admission to the Bar

Generally, every applicant for admission to the practice of law must be (F21-Good-Resident)
1. Filipino citizen;
2. At least 21 years of age;
3. Of Good moral character; and,
4. A Resident of the Philippines (Id. at Sec. 2).
He must also show that (MEBO):
1. No charges of Moral turpitude are filed or pending against him (Id.)

2. Possesses the required Educational qualifications (including a 4-year pre-law degree in an
authorized or recognized university or college) (Id., at Secs. 5 & 6).
a. Must have already earned a Bachelor's Degree in Arts or Sciences (pre-law);
b. Law course - completed courses in Civil Law, Commercial Law, Remedial Law, Criminal
Law, Public International Law, Political Law, Labor and Social Legislation, Medical
Jurisprudence, Taxation, Legal Ethics
c. Pass the Bar examinations (Id., at Secs. 14 & 17).
d. Other qualifications as may be prescribed by the Supreme Court (In Re: Cunanan, 94
Phil. 534, 1954).
(a) Bar Matter No. 1153, amending Section 5 and 6 of Rule 138
Amending Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court now allows
Filipino graduates of foreign law schools to take the Philippine Bar, subject to certain conditions.
Section 5 of the Rule now provides that before being admitted to the examination, all applicants
for admission to the bar shall satisfactorily show that they have successfully completed all the
prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree in a law school
or university officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the proper authority in the
foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been granted.
Section 5 now also provides that a Filipino citizen “who graduated from a foreign law school
shall be admitted to the bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of
certifications showing: (a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or
its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority;
and, (c) completion of all fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a
law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government."
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her degree in Bachelor of Laws or its
equivalent in a foreign law school must also present proof of completion of a separate
bachelor’s degree (Bar Matter No. 1153, 2010, Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza
Proposing Reforms in the Bar Examinations Through Amendments to Rules 138, Sec. 5 & 6,
ROC).
A bachelor's degree alone, conferred by a law school upon completion of certain academic
requirements, does not entitle its holder to exercise the legal profession (Cui v. Cui, G.R. No.
39773, 1934).
X concealed the fact that he had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-
legal education prescribed. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become
an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally
essential (Diao v. Martinez, A.C. No. 244, 1963).
The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual
and moral qualifications required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and
efficient administration of justice. It is the sworn duty of this Court not only to weed out”
lawyers who have become a disgrace to the noble profession of the law but, also of equal
importance, to prevent “misfits” from taking the lawyer’s oath, thereby further tarnishing the
public image of lawyers which in recent years has undoubtedly become less than
irreproachable. The Court recognized that X, although convicted in a criminal case, is not
inherently of bad moral fiber. Various certifications show that he is morally fit to be a lawyer and
is thereby allowed to take the lawyer’s oath (In Re: Argosino, B.M. No. 712, 1997.).
Complainant alleges that X, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in a
local elections and even signed a pleading representing himself as a lawyer. Possession of
moral integrity is of greater importance than possession of legal learning. The practice of law is
a privilege bestowed only on the morally fit. A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot practice
law even if he passes the bar examinations (Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. 1036, 2003).
The term “attorney” is reserved for those who pass the Philippine Bar. Those who only took and
passed the Shari’a Bar cannot use it. (Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. SDC-97-2-P, 1997) The
unauthorized use of the appellation "attorney" may render a person liable for indirect contempt
of court (In Re: Petition to Take the Bar B.M. No. 1209, 2003).
X failed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign
the Roll of Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he went home to his province for a vacation.
Only after several years of practice did he discover the Notice and realized that he had failed to
sign the roll. Practicing law while failing to sign the Roll of Attorneys will make the offender guilty
of unauthorized practice of law (In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys, B.M. No. 2540,
September 24, 2013.).
CONTINUING REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAR
(a) Good Moral Character
X was involved in the death of a neophyte during a fraternity hazing. The court has defined good
moral character as “something more than an absence of bad character. It is the good name,
which, the applicant has acquired, or should have acquired, through association with his
fellows. It means that he must have conducted himself as a man of upright character
ordinarily would, or should, or does. Such character expresses itself, not in negatives nor in
following the line of least resistance, but quite often, in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is
right, and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong (In Re: Al C. Argosino B.M. No.
712, 1995, citing 131 S.E. 661 [1926]).
The non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in one's petition to take the bar examinations is an
act of concealment which constitutes dishonesty and speaks of the petitioner’s lack of the
requisite good moral character. It is also violative of Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which states that “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.” The merit of the cases against the petitioner is immaterial (In the Matter of the
Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling in the 2002 Bar Examinations, B.M. No. 1154,
2004).
In the case of In re Al C. Argosino (B.M. No. 712 [1995]), petitioner Argosino, along with 13
other individuals, was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide due to his
involvement in the fraternity hazing which resulted in the death of Raul Camaligan. While his
application for probation was granted and he was allowed to take the 1993 bar examinations
(which he passed), his petition to take the Lawyer's Oath and to sign the Roll of Attorneys was
denied. The Supreme Court eventually allowed him to take the Lawyer's Oath when he
presented proof of the required moral character.
In the case of Villareal vs. People, Lenny Villa died during the initiation rites of the Aquila Legis
fraternity. Of the thirty-five (35) accused and charged for his death, five were found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. They were ordered to
serve a maximum term of 4 years and 2 months of prision correctional (Consolidated cases of
Villareal vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 151258, People vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
154954, Dizon vs. People, G.R. No. 155101, and Villa vs. Escalona, G.R. Nos. 178057 and
178080, 2012).
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8049 (The Anti-Hazing Law)
Hazing, defined.
An initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity,

sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or

humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or
activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury. (Sec.1)
Criminal Liability
If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or
dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who
actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals.
The person or persons who participated in the hazing shall suffer a penalty which ranges from
Reclusion Perpetua to Prison Correccional in its maximum period (4 years, 2 months and one
day to 6 years) depending on the gravity of the offense.
The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation as
principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein. (Sec. 4)
Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or
good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a
man owes his fellowmen, or to 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. Not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitude. (Pagaduan v. CSC,
G.R. No. 206379, 2014) It also means any act of vileness, baseness or depravity in the private
and social duties that a man owes his fellowmen or to society, contrary to the accepted rule of
right and duty between man and man (In re Gutierrez, A.M. No. L-363, 1962).
A lawyer who forges a court decision and represents it as that of a court of law is guilty of the
grave misconduct and deserved the supreme penalty of disbarment (Embido v. Pe, A.C. No.
6732 2013).
(b)Citizenship
General Rule: The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens, save in cases prescribed by law (Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 14, par.2).
Being a Filipino citizen is a "continuing requirement" for law practice in the Philippines, and the
loss of it automatically means the termination of that privilege.
i. Reacquisition of the privilege to practice law in the Philippines under R.A. No. 9225 or
the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country but later re-acquires his Philippine
citizenship under RA 9225 remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, re-
acquisition of the privilege to practice law in the Philippines is not "automatic" and the person
must first apply with proper authorities for a new license or permit (Petition to Re-Acquire the
Privilege to Practice Law by Epifanio Muneses, B.M. No. 2112, July 24, 2012, with
accompanying Supreme Court Resolution En Banc, 2012).
A Filipino lawyer who became a citizen of another country and later reacquired Filipino
citizenship under RA 9225 remains a member of the Philippine Bar. However, the right to
resume the practice of law is not automatic. RA 9225 provides that a person reacquiring Filipino
citizenship, who intends to practice law in the Philippines, must apply with the Office of the Bar
Confidant for a license or permit to engage in such practice, together with the following
requirements:
1. Petition for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship;

2. Order for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship;
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration;
5. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
6. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual membership dues;
7. Proof of payment of professional tax; and,
8. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.
(In Re: Petition to Re-acquire the Privilege to Practice Law in the Philippines, BM No. 2112,
2012)
Bar Examinations
Amending Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court now allows
Filipino graduates of foreign law schools to take the Philippine Bar, subject to certain conditions.
Section 5 of the Rule now provides that before being admitted to the examination, all applicants
for admission to the bar shall satisfactorily show that they have successfully completed all the
prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree in a law school
or university officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the proper authority in the
foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been granted.
Section 5 now also provides that a Filipino citizen “who graduated from a foreign law school
shall be admitted to the bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of
certifications showing: (a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or
its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority;
and, (c) completion of all fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a
law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government."
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her degree in Bachelor of Laws or its
equivalent in a foreign law school must also present proof of completion of a separate
bachelor’s degree (Bar Matter No. 1153, 2010, Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza
Proposing Reforms in the Bar Examinations Through Amendments to Rules 138, Sec. 5 & 6,
ROC).
Good Moral Character
X was involved in the death of a neophyte during a fraternity hazing. The court has defined good
moral character as “something more than an absence of bad character. It is the good name,
which, the applicant has acquired, or should have acquired, through association with his
fellows. It means that he must have conducted himself as a man of upright character
ordinarily would, or should, or does. Such character expresses itself, not in negatives nor in
following the line of least resistance, but quite often, in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is
right, and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong (In Re: Al C. Argosino B.M. No.
712, 1995, citing 131 S.E. 661 [1926]).
The non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in one's petition to take the bar examinations is an
act of concealment which constitutes dishonesty and speaks of the petitioner’s lack of the
requisite good moral character. It is also violative of Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which states that “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.” The merit of the cases against the petitioner is immaterial (In the Matter of the
Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling in the 2002 Bar Examinations, B.M. No. 1154,
2004).
In the case of In re Al C. Argosino (B.M. No. 712 [1995]), petitioner Argosino, along with 13
other individuals, was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide due to his
involvement in the fraternity hazing which resulted in the death of Raul Camaligan. While his
application for probation was granted and he was allowed to take the 1993 bar examinations
(which he passed), his petition to take the Lawyer's Oath and to sign the Roll of Attorneys was
denied. The Supreme Court eventually allowed him to take the Lawyer's Oath when he
presented proof of the required moral character.
In the case of Villareal vs. People, Lenny Villa died during the initiation rites of the Aquila Legis
fraternity. Of the thirty-five (35) accused and charged for his death, five were found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. They were ordered to
serve a maximum term of 4 years and 2 months of prision correctional (Consolidated cases of
Villareal vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 151258, People vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
154954, Dizon vs. People, G.R. No. 155101, and Villa vs. Escalona, G.R. Nos. 178057 and
178080, 2012).
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8049 (The Anti-Hazing Law)
Hazing, defined.
An initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity,

sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or
humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or
activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury. (Sec.1)
Criminal Liability
If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or
dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who
actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals.
The person or persons who participated in the hazing shall suffer a penalty which ranges from
Reclusion Perpetua to Prison Correccional in its maximum period (4 years, 2 months and one
day to 6 years) depending on the gravity of the offense.
The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation as
principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein. (Sec. 4)
Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or
good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a
man owes his fellowmen, or to 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. Not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitude. (Pagaduan v. CSC,
G.R. No. 206379, 2014) It also means any act of vileness, baseness or depravity in the private
right and duty between man and man (In re Gutierrez, A.M. No. L-363, 1962).
A lawyer who forges a court decision and represents it as that of a court of law is guilty of the
grave misconduct and deserved the supreme penalty of disbarment (Embido v. Pe, A.C. No.
6732 2013).
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
What constitutes unauthorized practice of law?

1. Non-lawyers appearing in courts;
2. Government lawyers who engage in the practice of law during their service in government
when they are expressly prohibited from doing so;
3. Government lawyers who are not expressly prohibited from practicing law but who fail to
secure the necessary permission from their head of agency;
4. Lawyers who engage in the practice while suspended or disbarred.
APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS IN COURTS
General Rule: Non-lawyers cannot practice law.
Exceptions: Non-lawyers may appear in certain cases:
(a) Law Student Practice (Rule 138-A)
Legal Aid Program: A senior law student, who is enrolled in a recognized law school’s clinical
education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear before any court without
compensation, to represent indigent clients, accepted by the Legal Clinic of the law school
(Rule 138-A, Section 1, ROC).
The student shall be under the direct supervision and control of an IBP member duly accredited
by the law school. All papers to be filed must be signed by the supervising attorney for and in
behalf of the legal clinic (Id. at Section 2.)
The rule on privileged communications applies to communications made to or received by the

law student acting for the legal clinic (Id. at Section 4.)
The law student must comply with the standards of professional conduct governing members of
the Bar. The supervising attorney’s failure to provide adequate supervision of student practice
may be a ground for disciplinary action (Id. at Section 34).
(b) Non-lawyers in Courts (MOC-LC)
1. In cases before the MTC, a non-lawyer may represent himself as a party to the litigation, in
person OR through an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose (Agpalo, Legal and
Judicial Ethics, p. 43, 2009; Sec. 34, Rule 138, ROC).
2. Before any Other court, they may also appear as a party to the litigation or in person. (Id.)
Thus, a fourth year law student may seek to enter his appearance for and on his own behalf
as plaintiff in a civil case NOT because of Rule 138-A but because of Section 34 of Rule 138
(Cruz v. Mijares, G.R. No. 154464, 2008).
3. In Criminal cases before the MTC in a locality where a duly licensed member of the Bar is
not available, the judge may appoint a non-lawyer who is (1) a resident of the province (2) of
good repute for probity and ability to aid the accused in his defense (Section 7, Rule 116,
ROC.)
4. They may also appear before the Cadastral Court (Section 9, Cadastral Act, Act 2259.)
Q: Does a person have the right to represent himself in civil cases?
A: Yes. An individual litigant has the right to conduct his litigation personally in civil cases. (Rule
138, Section 34 ROC)
Q: Can a person represent himself in criminal cases?
A: Yes, except in criminal cases involving grave and less grave offenses, an accused who is a
layman must always appear by counsel. He cannot conduct his own defense, as his right to
counsel may not be waived without violating his right to due process of law. (People v.
Holgado, G.R. No. L-2809, 1950)
(c) Non-lawyers in Administrative Tribunals
A non-lawyer may represent a party before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DA-RAB). (2009 DA-RAB Rules of Procedure, Rule VIII, Section 1.)
Non-lawyers may also appear before the NLRC or any Labor Arbiter if (1) they represent
themselves, (2) they represent their organization or members thereof or (3) they are duly
accredited members of any legal aid office duly recognized by the DOJ or the IBP in cases
referred to the latter (Article 222, Labor Code, P.D. 442, as amended.)
A non-lawyer who represents a party shall attach to the pleading a special power of attorney
authorizing such person to file the case and an affidavoty duly executed by the party
represented stating the reasons why such person was authorized (Sec. 11(b), Rule 3, 2011
Revised Rules of Procedure of the HLURB, Res. No. 871).
(d) Proceedings Where Lawyers are Prohibited from Appearing
1. Lawyers who have conflicting interests

2. Small claims (The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, A.M. 08-8-7-SC.) except when
the lawyer himself is the plaintiff or defendant, but under no circumstances can he appear as
a representative or attorney-in-fact of the party.
3. Proceedings which involve a conflict of interest for the lawyer (Mejia v. Reyes, A.C. No. 378,
1962).
4. In Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings
5. Lawyers who are members of Congress are prohibited from appearing before any court of
justice, before the Electoral Tribunals, and quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies
(Section 14, Article VI, 1987 Philippine Constitution).
In accordance with RA 6713, a public employee is generally prohibited from the practice of law
during his incumbency in the service. (Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, A.M. No. 08-6-
352-RTC, 2009). However, this is not an absolute rule. The exceptions to this may be found in
the next page.
Indeed, the IBP has no jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with
administrative offenses involving their official duties. For such acts, government lawyers fall
under the disciplinary authority of either their superior or the Ombudsman (Sps Buffe v. Sec.
Gonzales, A.C. No. 8168, 2016).
Although the Commission allows CHR lawyers to engage in private practice, a written request
and approval thereof, with a duly approved leave of absence for that matter are indispensable
(Yumol v. Ferrer, A.C. No. 6585, 2005; See Rule XVIII, Section 12, Revised Civil Service Rules,
cf. Memorandum Circular No. 17, s. 1986 and Special Rules governing members of the
judiciary. See Rule 138, Sec. 35, ROC vis-a-vis RA 6713, Sec. 7 (b) (2)).
Unauthorized Practice of Law
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
What constitutes unauthorized practice of law?

5. Non-lawyers appearing in courts;
6. Government lawyers who engage in the practice of law during their service in government
when they are expressly prohibited from doing so;
7. Government lawyers who are not expressly prohibited from practicing law but who fail to
secure the necessary permission from their head of agency;
8. Lawyers who engage in the practice while suspended or disbarred.
4. SANCTIONS FOR PRACTICE OR APPEARANCE WITHOUT AUTHORITY
(a) Lawyers Without Authority
A lawyer who appears without proper authority from a client is liable for contempt as an officer
of the court who misbehaved in his official transactions (Rule 138, Section 25, ROC).
(b) Persons Not Lawyers
A non-lawyer who practices law is guilty of illegal practice of law (Zeta v. Malinao, Adm. Case
No. P-220, 1978). In addition, he may be liable for indirect contempt for assuming to be an
attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority (Rule 71, Section 3[e],
ROC). He can also be criminally prosecuted for such false representation.
What are the remedies against unauthorized practice of law?

(Contempt-DIED)
1. CONTEMPT of court (Rule 71, Section 3(e), ROC)
2. Disqualification and complaints for disbarment (Rule 138, Section 27, ROC)
3. Petition for Injunction (Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, B.M. No. 553, 1993)
4. Criminal complaint for Estafa against a person who falsely represented to be an attorney to
the injury of a party. (Saladaga v. Astorga, A.C. No. 4697, 2014)
5. Declaratory relief (Que v. Revilla Jr., A.C. No 7054, 2009)
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRACTICE OF LAW
(a) Prohibition or disqualification of former government attorneysProhibitions or

disqualification of former government attorneys
The Canons shall apply to lawyers in government services in the discharge of their tasks.
(Canon 6)
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 (Rule 6.03).
A lawyer does not shed his professional obligations upon assuming public office (Report of IBP
Committee, p. 30). Hence, lawyers engaged in government service are also governed by the
Canons and Rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 6, Code of Professional
Responsibility; Pineda, p. 100). They are expected to be more sensitive to their professional
obligation because their conduct may be scrutinized by the public eye. (Report of IBP
Committee, p. 30).
Lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as

they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public
servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service. A government lawyer is a keeper of public
faith and is burdened with a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his brethren in
private practice (Ramos v. Imbang, A.C. 6788, 2007).
(b) Public Officials Who Cannot Practice Law or With Restrictions
General Rule: Public officials and employees are prohibited from engaging in the private
practice of law during their term.
Exception: If authorized by the Constitution or law, and provided such practice shall not
interfere in the performance of his duties. (R.A. 6713, Sec. 7 [b] [2]).
Lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for they are expected to devote
themselves full-time to the work of their respective offices. (Ramos v. Imbang, A.C. 6788, 2007).
The following public officials are not allowed to engage in the private practice of law in the
Philippines: (PRESIDENT-JOGS-COG)
1. PRESIDENT, Vice-President, members of the cabinet, their deputies and assistants (Art.
VIII, Section 15, 1987 Constitution)
2. Judges and other officials as employees of the Supreme Court (Rule 138, Sec. 35, ROC)
3. Officials and employees of the OSG (Id.)
4. Government prosecutors (Supra, People v. Villanueva)
5. Those prohibited by Special law (See Sec. 7(b) & 11, R.A. 6713)
6. Members of the Constitutional Commission (Section 2, Art IX-A, 1987 Constitution)
7. Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Section 8, 1987 Constitution)
8. All Governors, city and municipal mayors (Section 90(a), Local Government Code).
Public officials who are allowed to engage in the private practice of law, subject to certain
restrictions:
1. Members of Congress - No Senator or member of the House of Representative may
personally appear as counsel before any court of justice as before the Electoral Tribunals,
as well as quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies (Article VI, Section 14, 1987
Philippine Constitution). However, they are allowed to engage in other aspects of the law
practice such as giving of legal advice to clients, negotiating contracts in behalf of clients
which necessitates legal knowledge and similar others.
2. Sanggunian Members - Sanggunian members may practice their professions provided
that if they are members of the Bar, they shall not:
a. Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or
any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
b. Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or
local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office;

c. Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an official; or
d. Use property and personnel of the government EXCEPT when the Sanggunian member
concerned is defending the interest of the government (Section 91, Local Government
Code).
3. Retired justice or judge - A retired justice or judge receiving pension from the government
cannot act as counsel in any civil case in which the Government, or any of its subdivision or
agencies, is the adverse party or in a criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the
Government is accused of an offense in relation to his office (Section 1, RA 910, as
amended).
LAWYERS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT
Any person appointed to appear for the Government of the Philippines in accordance with law is
authorized to represent the government (Rule 138, Section 33, ROC.)
General Rule: It is the Office of the Solicitor General (Sol. Gen.) that represents the
government in cases involving or affecting it. For cases involving government-owned or
controlled corporations (GOCCs), it is generally the Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel (OGCC) that appears.
Exception: However, the OSG cannot be directed to file a pleading on behalf of a Municipality.
Based on Section 481(b)(3)(i) of the Local Government Code, it is the municipal legal officer, or
in the absence of one, the provincial attorney, who must represent a municipality in court cases.
Being a special law on the issue of representation in court that is exclusively made applicable to
LGUs, the LGC must prevail over the provisions of the Administrative Code (defining the duties
and responsibilities of the OSG (OSG v. CA, G.R. No. 199027, 2014).
The Sol. Gen. may deputize other government officials in the prosecution of its cases. In such
cases, notice to the deputized agent will not bind the Sol. Gen. until notice is actually received
by the Sol. Gen. But when a government agency which the Sol. Gen. is tasked to represent
appears through its internal counsel, then notice to such internal counsel is deemed notice to
the Sol. Gen. (Commissioner of Customs v. CA, G.R. No. 132929, 2000).
A GOCC may also engage the services of a private lawyer, provided that the following
indispensable conditions are met: (1) private counsel can only be hired in exceptional cases; (2)
the GOCC must first secure the written conformity and acquiescence of the Sol. Gen. or the
OGCC, as the case may be; and (3) the written concurrence of the COA must also be secured
(Vargas, et al. v. Ignes, A.C. No. 8096, 2010).
Discipline of Lawyers in Government Service
General Rule: A lawyer who holds public office may not be disciplined as a member of the bar
for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official.
Exception: The misconduct constitutes a violation of his duties as a lawyer (Olazo v. Justice
Tinga, A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC, 2010).
Misconduct in office as a public official may be a ground for disciplinary action if it is of such
character as to affect his qualification as lawyer or to show moral delinquency.
Disbarment cannot be used as a means of unseating or ousting a public official, especially

where admission to the Bar is one of the requisites for holding public office. For example, the
Ombudsman cannot be disbarred since it is a constitutional requirement that he or she must be
a lawyer.
LAWYER’S OATH
“I, __________________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines;
I will support its 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 willingly nor wittingly 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 court as to my clients;
and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion. So help me God.”
LEGAL ETHICS
Legal Ethics is the “branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes
to the court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public.” (Justice George
Malcolm)
What are the main sources of legal ethics in the Philippines?
1. The Lawyer’s Oath

2. The Code of Professional Responsibility
3. Rule 138, Section 20 of the Rules of Court (Duties of Attorneys)
The Canons of Professional Ethics (hereinafter “CPE”) promulgated by the Philippine Bar
Association are binding only on its members. However, the CPE can provide guidance to the
Bench and Bar, as the Supreme Court has cited some of its provisions with approval in a
number of its decisions (Form 28, appended to the Rules of Court as revised on Oct. 25, 1979).
What are the specific duties of a lawyer under Section 20 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court? (J’s RED COAT)
1. To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him as Just, and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the laws;
2. To observe and maintain the Respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;
3. 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;
4. In the Defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless
of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law
permits to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of
law.;
5. To maintain inviolate the Confidence and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets in
connection with his client and to accept no compensation in connection with his client’s
business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
6. Never to reject for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
Oppressed;
7. To maintain Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and
to obey the laws of the Philippines;
8. 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
END OF TOPIC
DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF A
LAWYER
B. Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer

1. To society (Canons 1-6)
a. Respect for law and legal process
b. Efficient and convenient legal services
c. True, honest, fair, dignified and objective information on legal services
d. Participation in the improvement and reforms in the legal system
e. Participation in legal education program
2. To the legal profession (Canons 7-9)
a. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Rule 139-A)
i. Membership and dues
b. Upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession
c. Courtesy, fairness and candor towards professional colleagues
d. No assistance in unauthorized practice of law
3. To the courts ( Canons 10-13)
a. Candor, fairness and good faith towards the courts
b. Respect for courts and judicial officers
c. Assistance in the speedy and efficient administration of justice
d. Reliance on the merits of his cause and avoidance of any impropriety which
tends to influence or gives the appearance of influence upon the courts
4. To the clients ( Canons 14-22)
a. Availability of service without discrimination
i. Services regardless of a person's status
i. Services as counsel de officio
ii. Valid grounds for refusal
b. Candor, fairness and loyalty to clients
i. Confidentiality rule
ii. Privileged communication
iii. Conflict of interest
iv. Candid and honest advice to clients
v. Compliance with laws
vi. Concurrent practice of another profession
c. Client's moneys and properties
i. Fiduciary relationship
ii. Commingling of funds
iii. Delivery of funds
iv. Borrowing or lending
d. Fidelity to client's cause
e. Competence and diligence
i. Adequate protection
ii. Negligence
iii. Collaborating counsel
iv. Duty to apprise client
f. Representation with zeal within legal bounds
i. Use of fair and honest means

ii. Client's fraud
iii. Procedure in handling the case
g. Attorney's fees
i. Acceptance fees
ii. Contingency fee arrangements
iii. Attorney's liens
iv. Fees and controversies with clients
v. Concepts of attorney's fees
 Ordinary concept
 Extraordinary concept
h. Preservation of client's confidences
i. Prohibited disclosures and use
ii. Disclosure, when allowed
iii. Withdrawal of services
What are the four-fold duties of a lawyer? (SPCC)
Lawyers have duties to (1) society, (2) the legal profession (fellow lawyers), (3) the court, and
(4) the client in that order (See Cruz v. Aliño-Hormachuelos, A.M No. CA-04-38, 2004).
1. Society (Canons 1-6, CPR)
He should not violate his responsibility to society. He must be an exemplar for righteousness,
ready to render legal aid, foster social reforms, guardian of due process, aware of special role in
the solution of special problems, and be always ready to lend assistance in the study and
solution of social problems.
2. Profession (Canons 7-9, CPR)
He must observe candor, fairness, courtesy and truthfulness. He must also avoid encroachment
on the business of other lawyers, and uphold the honor of the profession.
3. Court (Canons 10-13, CPR)
He is an officer of the court. He has the duty to respect or defend against criticisms, uphold
authority and dignity, obey orders and processes, and assist in the administration of justice.
4. Client (Canons 14-22, CPR)
He must afford his entire devotion to his client’s interest within legal and ethical bounds.
DUTIES TO SOCIETY ( CANONS 1-

6)
The primary duty of a lawyer to the society or the State is to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land
(Lawyer’s Oath; Rule 138, Sec. 20, ROC; Canon 1 of the CPR; Montecillo v. Gica, 60 SCRA
234, 1974).
As a servant of law, a lawyer belongs to a profession to which the society has entrusted the
administration of law and the dispensing of justice (Samala v. Valencia, Adm. Case No. 5439,
2007).
While the duty to uphold the Constitution and obey the law is an obligation imposed on every
citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond the basic requirements of good
citizenship. As a servant of the law, a lawyer should moreover make himself an example for
others to emulate. Being a lawyer, he is supposed to be a model in the community in so far as
respect for the law is concerned (Lee v. Tambango, A.C. No. 5281, 2008).
(a) Respect for Law and Legal Processes:
Duty to Uphold the Constitution and Obey the Law
Canon 1 - A Lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.
Duty Not to Engage in Unlawful Conduct
Rule 1.01 of the CPR provides that a lawyer “shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.” (Canon 1, CPR).
Unlawful conduct is an act or omission which is against the law (Samson v. Restrivera G.R.
No 178454, 2011).
A dishonest act is an act of lying or cheating (Balasbas v. Monayao G.R. No 190524, 2014).
Immoral or deceitful conduct is conduct that involves moral turpitude, and includes acts done
contrary to justice, modesty or good morals amongst others (In re: Basa, 41 Phil. 275, 1920).
Grossly immoral conduct is conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless and which shows a
moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community
(Arciga v. Maniwag, 106 SCRA 591, 1981).
A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree (Reyes v. Wong, A.M. No.
547, 1975).
Moral turpitude means anything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good
morals (Rule 138, Sec. 27, Rules of Court.), or to any act of vileness, baseness or depravity in
the private and social duties that a man owes his fellowmen or to society, contrary to the
accepted rule of right and duty between man and man (In re Gutierrez, A.M. No. L-363, 1962).
Lawyers whose acts are grossly immoral have ceased to possess the qualifications of a lawyer
(Mecaral v. Velasquez, A.C. No. 8392, 2010).
The presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring his act or
omission within the terms of Rule 1.01 which specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in
unlawful conduct (Re: Financial Audit of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, A.M. No. P-06-2177, 2007).
Public confidence in the law may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a
member of the Bar (Catu v. Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738, 2008).
When Atty. X attempted to purchase illegal drugs, a question affecting his standing as an
attorney of law arose. Atty. X argued that the act complained of was not committed in the
exercise of his profession and therefore cannot constitute a ground for disciplinary action.
However, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise: As good character is an essential qualification for
admission of an attorney to practice, when the attorney’s character is bad in such respects as to
show he is unsafe and unfit to be entrusted with the powers of an attorney, the court retains the
power to discipline him (Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil 350, 1933).
Duty Not to Counsel Illegal Activities
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.
Nor should he subvert the law by counseling or assisting in activities which are in defiance of
the law (Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p. 5). Hence, he should not
promote nor assist organizations which violate the law.
A lawyer who advised her clients and their relatives to approach the judge and fiscal to “beg and
cry” so that their motions would be granted and their cases against them would be dismissed,
violates Rule 1.02 of the CPR. Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from
external forces or factors according to the merits of the case (Arreola v. Mendoza, A.C. No.
10135, 2014).
A lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. No presumption of innocence or improbability
of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney’s favor (Chua v. Mesina, Jr., A.C. No. 4904, 2004).
Thus, a lawyer who proposes to his client a recourse or remedy that is contrary to law, public
policy, public order, and public morals, or that lessens the public confidence in the legal system
is guilty of gross misconduct, and should be suspended from the practice of law, or even
disbarred (Coronel v. Cunanan, A.C. No. 6738, 2015).
Atty. X prepared and notarized illegal lease contracts in favor of aliens who sought to own
private lands in the Philippines. Atty. X argued that he cannot be held liable since he was only
performing his clients wishes by preparing documents that reflected their true agreements. In
preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts, Atty. X violated the Attorney’s Oath and
several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. One of the foremost sworn duties of
an attorney-at-law is to “be the law of the Philippines.” This duty is enshrined in the Attorney’s
Oath and in Canon 1. A plain reading of these contracts clearly shows that they violate the law
limiting the lease of private lands to aliens for a period of 25 years (Kupers v. Hontanosas, A.C.
No. 5704, 2009).
Atty. X advised a foreign national that the latter was eligible to own real property in the
Philippines. When the foreign national found out that a prohibition on ownership of real property
existed, a complaint for disbarment was lodged against Atty. X. The Supreme Court ordered
Atty. X’s disbarment, ruling in the wise: Lawyers, as members of a noble profession, have the
duty to promote respect for the law and uphold the integrity of the bar. Thus, a lawyer who leads
a foreign national to believe he may validly acquire land in the Philippines has committed a
serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. He showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross
ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared spurious documents that he knew were void and
illegal. A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes to circumvent the law poses a lcear and
present danger to the rule of law and the legal system (Stemmerik v. Mas, A.C. No. 8010, 2009).
Duty Not to Encourage Lawsuits
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
This rule aims to prevent barratry and ambulance chasing.
Barratry is defined as “an offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits, either
at law or otherwise.” (4 Bla. Com. 134; Co. Litt. 368.) It is the lawyer’s act of fomenting suits
among individuals and offering his legal services to one of them for monetary motives of
purposes.
Ambulance chasing is the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney,
personally or through an agent, in order to gain employment (Linsangan vs. Tolentino, A.C. No.
6672, 2009).
Duty to Encourage Amicable Settlements
Rule 1.04 of the CPR states that a lawyer “shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.” He should serve as a mediator for compromises
rather than an instigator of controversies or conflicts (De Ysasi v. NLRC, G.R. No. 104599,
1994).
Rule 15.04 - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator, or arbitrator in settling disputes.
(b) Efficient and Convenient Legal Services
CANON 2 – A Lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and
convenient manner compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the
profession.
A Lawyer Shall Not Reject the Cause of the Defenseless or Oppressed.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
It is the prime duty of a lawyer to see to it that justice be accorded to all without discrimination. If
the party is without means to employ an attorney and the services of a lawyer are necessary to
protect such parties’ right, the lawyer assigned has to render effective legal services until the
court excuses him (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2009).
A Lawyer shall not refuse to render legal advice
A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed.
(Rule 2.01) Even if a lawyer does not accept because of a valid reason, he shall not refuse to
render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard latter’s
rights (Rule 2.02).
However, the lawyer can refuse to represent an indigent client:
1. If he is in no position to carry out the work effectively or competently, or

2. If he labors under a conflict of interest between him and a prospective, or between a present
client and the prospective client (Rule 14.03, CPR).
(c) True, Honest, Fair, Dignified and Objective Information on Legal Services
CANON 3 – A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified, and objective information or statement of facts.
A Lawyer Shall Not Solicit Legal Business
The law absolutely prohibits lawyers from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, which constitutes malpractice. (Rule 138, Sec. 27,
ROC) Also, a lawyer should shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business (Rule 2.03, CPR).
A Lawyer Cannot Advertise His Talent
Advertisements are not allowed. The most worthy and effective advertisement possible is the
establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.
A lawyer cannot advertise his talent as a shopkeeper advertises his wares (In Re Tagorda, 54
Phil. 37, 1929). A lawyer is a member of an honourable profession whose primary purpose is to
render public service and help secure justice and in which remuneration is a mere incident
(Canon 12, CPE).
What acts are considered indirect advertisements?
Indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper

comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the
lawyer has been engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the
interest involved, the importance of the lawyer's position, and all other self-laudation.
The rule on advertisements is not absolute.
The following are considered permissible advertisements: (Yellow Legal RACE)

1. Yellow pages/telephone directories containing the firm name, addresses and contact
numbers
1. Advertisements or announcement in any Legal publication, including books, journals, and
legal magazines.
2. Reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the
canons, of brief biographical and informative data, are allowed (Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.,
B.M. No. 553, 1993).
3. A simple Announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership,
associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is not
objectionable (Id.).
4. Ordinary simple professional Card. It may contain only a statement of his name, the name
of the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and the special
branch of law practiced (Id.).
5. Advertisements or simple announcement of the Existence of a lawyer or his law firm posted
anywhere it is proper such as his place of business or residence except courtrooms and
government buildings.
Writing Legal Articles
A lawyer may, with propriety, write articles for publications in which he gives information upon
the law; but he should not accept employment from such publications to advise inquiries in
respect to the individual rights (Canon 40, CPE).
What should be guarded against are:

1. Improper advertising by a lawyer; (Canon 27, CPE)
2. Giving legal advice to one when no attorney-client relationship exists; (Canon 35, CPE) and
3. Aiding a layman to engage in unauthorized practice of law (Canon 47, CPE).
Note: The Canons of Professional Ethics are cited in an advisory capacity; they are not mandatory except
on members of the Philippine Bar Association.
Lawyer Shall Not Use False or Misleading Firm Name
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.
A law partnership is a mere association of lawyers for such purpose and is a non-legal entity. It
is not a taxpayer, even if such law partnership is registered with the SEC. In the formation of
such partnership, no person should be admitted or held out as a member who is not a lawyer.
(Canon 33, CPE) Filipino lawyers cannot practice law under the name of a foreign law
firm, as the latter cannot practice law in the Philippines (Dacanay v. Baker & McKenzie,
Adm. Case No. 2131, 1985).
The use of a deceased person’s name as part of the firm name is allowed as long as the public
is not misled, e.g. there is an indication that the person is deceased (For example, by placing a
cross beside the name of the deceased lawyer.).
Partner Who Accepts Public Office Should Withdraw from the Firm
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his
name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law
concurrently.
The purpose of the rule is to prevent the law firm from using the partner’s name to attract
business and to avoid suspicion or undue influence (Comments of IBP committee that drafted
the Code, p. 16).
Exception: A partner may opt not to withdraw from the firm if the law allows him to practice law
concurrently.
Lawyer Shall Not Seek Media Publicity
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.
Media publicity, as a normal by-product of efficient legal service, is not improper. What is
improper is for a lawyer to resort to propaganda to secure media publicity for the purpose of
attracting legal business. (Id.)
Lawyers in Government Service
Canon 6 – These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of
their official tasks.
Lawyers in government service are held to higher and more exacting standards under the Code
of Professional Responsibility. As counsels of the State, it is their duty to promote high ethical
standards in public service in keeping with the fundamental principle that a public office is a
public trust and that a public servant owes utmost fidelity to public service.
A government lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is burdened with a high degree of social
responsibility, higher than his brethren in private practice (Ramos v. Imbang, A. C. No. 6788,
2007). Thus, violation of the Code or the lawyer’s oath in the discharge of official duties may
hold a government counsel administratively liable (Comments of the IBP that drafted the Code,
p.30).
Norms of Conduct of Public Officials

Under R.A. No. 6713, Section 4 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees), the following norms of conduct is expected from government counsels as public
officials in the conduct and execution of their duties:
1. Commitment to public interest
2. Professionalism
3. Justness and sincerity
4. Political neutrality
5. Responsiveness to the public
6. Nationalism and patriotism
7. Commitment to democracy
8. Simple living
Duty of a Lawyer Engaged in Public Prosecution
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.
As a representative of the State, the prosecutor has an obligation to govern with impartiality and
must see to it that either guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer; that while he may strike hard
blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones (Suarez v. Platon, G.R. No. 46371, 1940). As a
quasi-judicial officer, his primary duty is not to convict but to see that justice is done ( Agpalo,
Legal and Judicial Ethics, 82, 2009).

Thus, Rule 6.0, Canon 6 also adds that 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. He therefore holds the duty to present to the court the pertinent
facts with the aim of erasing from the court’s mind the innocence or guilt of the accused
(Dimatulac v. Villalon, G.R. No. 127107, 1998).

In appellate courts however, it is the Solicitor General who is the lawyer of the People of the
Philippines. The exception is provided by RA 8249, which provides that cases elevated to the
Sandiganbayan will be represented by the Office of the Ombudsman through its’ special
prosecutor.

A Lawyer in Government Service Must Not Use his Position for Private Interests
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.
General Rule: The private practice of the profession is prohibited while they remain in
government service.
Exception: When private practice is authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such
practice will not conflict with their official function.

As a general rule, Rule 6.02, Canon 6 prohibits a lawyer in government service from using his
public position neither for private gain, nor to allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties. Lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for they are expected to
devote
themselves full-time to the work of their respective government offices (Ramos v. Imbang, A. C.
No. 6788, 2007).
Should they be allowed to practice law alongside their public office, they should do so while
refraining from any private legal business which would conflict with their official duties
(Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, pp. 31-32).
R.A. No. 6713, Section 4 prohibits public officials from directly or indirectly having any financial

or material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office.

The same law also prohibits the following activities outside of their employment:
 Owning, controlling, or accepting employment in any private enterprise regulated,
supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law;
 Engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or
law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions;
or
 Recommending any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or
pending official transaction with their office.
A Lawyer After Leaving Government Service Must Refrain from any Conflict of Interest
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
A lawyer who has left government service (e.g., through retirement or resignation) may not
accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened
while in said service. The purpose of this prohibition is to avoid a conflict of interest, whether
adverse-interest conflicts or congruent-interest conflicts, between the lawyer and his former
clients (Rule 6.03, CPR).
This is reiterated in R.A. No. 6713, Section 7(b) which states that he prohibition on private
practice applies even to former lawyers in government service with regard to the practice of his
profession in connection with any matter that he has handled before the government office he
used to work with.

In PCCG vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 151809-12, 2005), the SC clarified the contentious
terms within Rule 6.03 of Canon 6, specifically:
1. “Matter” – as defined by Formal Opinion 342 of the American Bar Association, is the
discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular
situation and specific party, and not merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting
government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law.
2. “Intervene” – must be a substantial (not merely innocuous or insignificant) intervention that
must affect the interests of parties.
General Rule: Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not engage in the
private practice of their profession (R.A. No. 6713, par.7(b)).
Exception: Unless authorized by the Constitution or law, and provided that such practice will
not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions.
The professional concerned can engage in his profession immediately after his resignation,
retirement or separation from office.
However, he cannot practice his possession in connection with any matter before the office he
used to be with for a period of 1 year after said retirement, resignation, or separation from office.
(d) Participation in the Improvement and Reforms in the Legal System
Participating in Legal Development
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.
It is not a strict duty of lawyers to contribute to the improvement of the legal system. However, it
is a duty that stems from a lawyer’s sense of responsibility. He must recognize that the law is
part of an intricate social network, which necessarily includes interaction with the society. He
must broaden out and continue to grow in knowledge and competence in order to be able to
make the law socially responsive (Comments of the IBP Committee that drafted the Code, pp.
20-21).
(e) Participation in Legal Education Program
Lawyers shall keep abreast of legal developments
Canon 5 - That lawyers “shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in

continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve highest standards in law
schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating
information regarding the law and jurisprudence.”
Under Bar Matter No. 850, continuing legal education is required of members of the IBP to
ensure that they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession
and enhance the standards of the practice of law.
Members of the IBP not exempt from Rule 7 of the Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) are required to complete at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal
education activities every three (3) years.
Failure to comply shall pay a non-compliance fee of P1,000 and be listed as a delinquent
member of the IBP.
Failure to disclose the required information would case the dismissal of the case and the
expunction of the pleadings from the records (B.M. No. 1922).
Failure to comply with the MCLE requirements and disregards of the directives of MCLE office
warrants an attorney’s declaration as a delinquent member. He will be suspended until he has
complied with the requirement (Samuel Arnado v. Atty. Homobono A. Adaza, A.C. No. 9834,
2015).
DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION ( CANONS 7-9)
The maintenance by the bar of a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair
dealing is a prerequisite to making the bar an effective instrument in the proper administration of
justice. But the bar can only be as reputable as its members (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics,
100, 2009).
(a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) (Rule 139-A)
The IBP is the national organization of lawyers created on January 16, 1973 under Rule 139-A,
Rules of Court, and constituted on May 4, 1973 into a body corporate by P.D. No. 181.
Integration of the Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer population.
It requires membership and financial support of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the
practice of law and retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
All lawyers are subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar, including:
1. The payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective discharge of the purposes of the
Bar; and,
2. Adherence to a code of professional ethics or professional responsibility (Letter of Atty.
Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr., Requesting Exemption from Payment of IBP Dues, B.M. No. 1370,
2005).
Power to Integrate the Bar
The Constitution vests upon the Supreme Court the power to integrate the Philippine Bar. Such
power is an inherent part of the Court’s constitutional authority over the bar (See Art. VIII, Sec.
5, paragraph 5, Philippine Constitution).
Prior to this, the Philippine Congress granted the Supreme Court the power to adopt rules of
court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar by enacting R.A. No. 6397 (An Act Providing
for the Integration of the Philippine Bar and Appropriating Funds Therefor). Rule 139-A was
passed by the Supreme Court on January 16, 1973.
Constitutionality of Integration
The Court is fully convinced that the integration of the Philippine Bar is "perfectly constitutional
and legally unobjectionable," within the context of contemporary conditions in the Philippines,
has become an imperative means to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility fully and
effectively (In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 49 SCRA 22, 1973).
Mandatory membership in the national IBP is not violative of a lawyer’s freedom to associate (In
re: Edillon, A.M. No. 1928, 1978). It does not make a lawyer a member of any group which he is
not already a member of. All that integration actually does is to provide an official national
organization for the well-defined but unorganized group of which every lawyer is already a
member. Assuming that it is a compulsion, it’s justified under the police power of the State (In
the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion, A.M. No. 1928,
1978).
Purposes and Objectives of IBP
Generally:
1. To elevate the standards of the legal profession;
2. To improve the administration of justice;
3. To enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively;
Non-political Bar
The Integrated Bar shall be strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair this basic
feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly (IBP By-Laws, Art. I, Sec. 4).
The following are not eligible for election or appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or
any Chapter thereof:
1. Any lawyer holding the following positions in the Government or any political subdivision or
instrumentality:
a. Elective office
b. Judicial office
c. Quasi-judicial office
d. Prosecutory office
2. If an incumbent Delegate, Governor, Officer or employee of the Integrated Bar, or an officer
or employee of any Chapter thereof subsequently files his certificate of candidacy for any
elective public office or accepts appointment into any of the three other positions above, he
shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his position (Rule 139-A, Section 13).
(i) Membership and Dues
Membership is mandatory. A lawyer does not automatically become a member of the IBP
chapter where he resides or works after becoming a full-fledged member of the Bar. He has the
discretion to choose the IBP chapter he wants to join, but he must join (Garcia v. de Vera, A.C.
No. 6052, 2003).
There is no retirement in the IBP. A lawyer, however, may terminate his bar membership after
filing the required verified notice of termination with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar who
shall bring the matter to the Supreme Court (Rule 139-A, Section 11).
The SC granted a petition for voluntary delisting by Atty. X which was filed to protest the alleged
corruption in the profession, specifically those in the prosecution service of the judiciary.
(Decision not available; verified news information lifted from:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/875282/sc-grants-cebu-lawyers-bid-to-be-delisted-from-corrupt-
profession).
Membership dues and effect of non-payment thereof
Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues, as the Board of Governors
shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent
(10%) of the collection from each Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled
members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof (Rule 139-A,
Section 9).
Without paying IBP dues, a lawyer cannot engage in practice of law, no matter how limited is his
practice. (Santos, Jr. v. Llamas, Adm. Case No. 4749, January 20, 2000.) IBP dues are not
subject to the senior citizen discount and the student discount (Id.).
Default in the payment of annual dues for 6 months shall warrant suspension of membership in
the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for 1 year shall be a ground for the removal of
the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys (Buehs v. Bacatan, A.C. No.
6674, 2009).
Payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is

exempt. This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as
one’s membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of
practice, the member is engaged in (Letter of Atty. Cecilio Arevalo, B.M. No. 1370, 2005).
All lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings, motions and papers signed and filed by them in any
court in the Philippines, the number and date of their official receipt indicating payment of their
annual membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the current year; provided,
however, that such official receipt number and date for any year may be availed of and indicated
in all such pleadings, motions and papers filed by them in court up to the end of the month of
February of the next succeeding year (OCA Circular 10-85, dated July 24, 1985).
Election of National Officers
The Integrated Bar shall have a President and an Executive Vice President who shall be chosen
by the Governors immediately after the latter's election, either from among themselves or from
other members of the Integrated Bar, by the vote of at least five (5) Governors. Each of the
regional members of the Board shall be ex officio Vice President for the Region which he
represents.
The Integrated Bar shall have a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such other officers and employees
as may be required by the Board of Governors, to be appointed by the President with the
consent of the Board, and to hold office at the pleasure of the Board or for such terms as it may
fix. Said officers and employees need not be members of the Integrated Bar (Rule 139-A,
Section 7).
Misconduct of lawyers during IBP elections diminishes the dignity of the IBP as an association
of a noble and honorable profession (In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC, 2010).
Board of Governors
A Board of Governors shall govern the Integrated Bar. The House of Delegates shall elect nine
Governors from the nine (9) Regions on the representation basis of one (1) Governor from each
Region.
House of Delegates
Deliberative body of the Integrated Bar
The Integrated Bar shall have a House of Delegates of not more than 120 members who shall
be apportioned among all the Chapters as nearly as may be according to the number of their
respective members, but each Chapter shall have at least 1 Delegate (Rule 139-A, Section 5).
Chapter Government
A Chapter of the Integrated Bar shall be organized in every province. Except as herein provided,
every city shall be considered part of the province within which it is geographically situated (Id.,
Section 4).
(b) Upholding the Dignity and Integrity of the Profession
Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the integrated bar
Maintenance of a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing is a pre-
requisite to making the bar an effective instrument in the proper administration of justice.
A Person Shall Make No False Statement in His Application For Admission to the Bar
Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
Failure to live up to the standards of conduct may prevent an aspiring lawyer from being
admitted to practice (Barba v. Pedro, A.M. No. 545-SBC, 1974.). In a case where the lawyer did
not disclose the fact that he obtained his A.A. degree six months after he began his law studies,
even if he was admitted without the Supreme Court acquiring knowledge of his transgressions
thereof, he may be disbarred for such misconduct (Diao v. Martinez, A.C. No. 244, 1963).
A Lawyer Shall Not Support an Unqualified Applicant 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.
He should volunteer information or cooperate in any investigation concerning alleged anomalies
in the bar examination so that those candidates who failed therein can be ferreted out and those
lawyers responsible therefor can be disbarred (In re Parazo, 82 Phil. 230, 1948).
A Lawyer Shall Always Conduct Himself Ethically and Morally
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in any conduct or do any act that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor to behave, in his public or private life, in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
He should conduct himself at all time in such a way as to give credit to the legal profession and
to inspire the confidence, respect and trust of his clients and the community.
Q: May a lawyer be disbarred/ penalized for acts done not in a professional capacity?
A: Yes. 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 (Navarro v. Solidum Jr., A.C No. 9872, 2014).
Acts that justify suspension from practice or disbarment:

1. Gross immorality
2. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude (De Jesus-Paras v. Vailoces, A.C. No. 439,
1961).
3. Fraudulent transactions
Gross Immorality Reflective of Unfitness to Practice
To justify suspension or disbarment, the act must not only be immoral; it must be grossly
immoral as well (Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr., SBC Case No. 519. 1997).
Grossly Immoral Conduct
It is conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members of the community (Arciga v. Maniwag, A.M. No.
1608, 1981).
Grossly Immoral Act
One that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful
as to be reprehensible to a high degree (Reyes v. Wong, A.M. No. 547, 1975).
The question of whether an act is grossly immoral may depend, to some extent, upon the
prejudice, caprice & bias of the court, and the general concept of morality prevailing at the time.
Cohabitation per se is not grossly immoral; it will depend on the surrounding circumstances (In
re: Regidor R. Toledo v. Atty. Jerry R. Toledo, A.M. No. P-07-2403, 2008). Mere intimacy
between a man and woman, both of whom possess no impediment to marry, voluntarily carried
on and devoid of any deceit on the part of the former, is neither so corrupt nor so unprincipled
as to warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction against him, even if as a result of such
relationship a child was born out of wedlock (Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr., SBC Case No. 519,
1997). This rule does not apply to lawyers who are married.
The admission by lawyer of the paternity of a child and agreeing to support the child renders his
immorality not so gross and scandalous (Marcayda v. Naz, A.M. No. 1856, 1983).
Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude
Moral turpitude means anything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good
morals (Rule 138, Sec. 27, ROC), or to any act of vileness, baseness or depravity in the private
right and duty between man and man (In re Gutierrez, A.M. No. L-363, 1962). It is difficult to
state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is grossly immoral conduct
(Arciga v. Maniwang, A.M. No. 1608, 1981).
The following acts have been declared by the Supreme Court as involving moral turpitude:
1. Those that involve fraud or deceit:

a. Violation of BP 22;
b. Falsification of public documents;
c. Estafa;
d. Embezzlement;
e. Swindling;
f. Smuggling
2. Those that are inherently contrary to rules of right conduct, honesty, or morality in a civilized
community:
a. Abduction with consent (In re Basa, 41 Phil. 275, 1920);
b. Murder (In re Gutierrez, Adm. Case No. L-363, 1962);
c. Bigamy;
d. Participation in fatal hazing of a fraternity neophyte (In re Al Argosino, supra).
Lawyers convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude are either suspended from the practice of
law or disbarred.
Commission of Fraud or Falsehood
The commission of fraud or falsehood in the lawyer’s private dealings may make him
administratively liable therefor. Some examples of frauds and falsehoods include:
 Falsely stating in a deed of sale that the property is free from liens or encumbrances (In Re
Quiambao, A.C. No. 195, 1958)
 Misappropriating money belonging to his employer (Investment and Management Services
Corp. v. Roxas, A.C. No. 1417, 1996)
 A Shari’a lawyer referring to himself as an attorney (Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P,
1997).
 Advising a foreigner that he could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines
and assuring that the property was alienable when it was not ( Stemmerik v. Mas, A.C. No.
8010, 2009).
 Tampering of votes in an election (Pimentel v. Llorente, A.C. No. 4690, 2000).
 Misappropriating insurance proceeds of a client’s deceased husband (Freeman v. Reyes,
A.C. No. 6246, 2011).
(c) Courtesy, Fairness, and Candor Towards Professional Colleagues
CANON 8 – A Lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Candor, Fairness, and Truthfulness Should Characterize Relations

Candor, fairness, and truthfulness should characterize the conduct of a lawyer with other
lawyers.
 He should not ignore recognized customs and practices of the bar (Canon 25, CPE).
 He should not yield to his client’s demand that he should be illiberal, nor should he do
anything repugnant to his sense of honor and propriety (Canon 24, CPE).
 He should not take advantage of the excusable unpreparedness or absence of counsel
during the trial of a case (See Yulo v Yang Chiao Seng, G.R. No. L-12541, 1960).
 A lawyer who rudely interrupts his fellow lawyer while the latter was making representations
in behalf of the other party is in violation of this Canon (Bugaring v. Espanol, G.R. No.
133090, 2001).
 A lawyer should not avoid performance of an agreement fairly made simply because it has
not been reduced into writing.
A Lawyer Should Use Temperate Language
A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper (Rule 8.01, CPR). No attorney ought to be criticized in the making of an
honest legal effort to protect the interest of his client (Asia Banking v. Herridge, G.R. No. 20993,
1923). Disrespectful language serves no useful purpose and constitutes direct contempt or
contempt in facie curiae (Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-27072,
1970). Lack or want of intention is no excuse for the disrespectful language employed (Rheem
of the Philippines v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 22979, 1967). However, strong language is justified if
impelled by the same language used by the Judge (Fernandez v. Hon. Bello, G.R. No. L-14277,
1960).
He should only use such temperate but forceful language in his pleadings or arguments as
befitting an advocate.
A lawyer does not have the right to scold his opposing counsel and insult and berate those who
tried to calm him down, even for the reason that he was moved by the plight of his client
(Alcantara v. Pefianco, A.C. No. 5398, 2002).
A lawyer's act of raising his voice and uttering vulgar invectives to the clerk of court was not only
ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did these in front of the complainant's
subordinates (Dallong-Galicinao v. Castro, A.C. No. 6396, 2005).
However, it must be noted that “utterances, petitions and motions made in the course of judicial
proceedings have consistently been considered as absolutely privileged, however false or
malicious they may be, but only for so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of
inquiry.” In this regard, the Supreme Court has stated the test for relevancy as follows:
As to the degree of relevancy or pertinence necessary to make alleged defamatory matters

privileged the courts favor a liberal rule. The matter to which the privilege does not extend must
be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no reasonable
man can doubt its relevancy and impropriety. In order that matter alleged in a pleading may be
privileged, it need not be in every case material to the issues presented by the pleadings. It
must, however, be legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the controversy
that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course of the trial (Saberon v. Larong, A.C. No.
6567, 2008).
A Lawyer Should Not Encroach Upon the Business of Another
Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or
favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglectful counsel.
A lawyer should not steal the other lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him by a
promise of better service or reduced fees (Linsangan v. Tolentino, A.C. No. 6672, 2009).
There is no encroachment when the previous lawyer was already dismissed (Laput v.
Remotigue, A.M. No. 219, 1962).
A lawyer retained to take over a case from a peer in the bar should do so only after he shall
have obtained the conformity of the counsel whom he would substitute.
Negotiation with the Opposite Party
A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party
represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter
with him, but should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly
to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel, and he should
not undertake to advise him as to the law (Camacho v. Pangulayan, A.C. No. 4807, 2000).
The act of a lawyer, representing the defendants of the case, of preparing the affidavit of
desistance encroached upon the legal functions of the complainants' attorney. It was
unscrupulous of the defendants' lawyer to compel some of the complainants to execute the
affidavit of desistance sans the knowledge and agreement of the latter's counsel. (Binay-an v.
Addog, A.C. No. 10449, 2014).
Neither should the lawyer attempt to interview the opposite party and question him as to the
facts of the case even if the adverse party is willing to do so (A. B. A. Op. 75, 1932).
(d) No Assistance in Unauthorized Practice of Law
Duty to Prevent Unauthorized Practice of Law
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.
Unauthorized practice is committed when a person not a lawyer pretends to be one and
performs acts which are exclusive to the members of the bar; it is punishable by fine or
imprisonment or both (Tan v. Balajadia, G.R. No. 169517, 2006).
Collaborating with a person who is not a member of the bar can subject one to disciplinary
proceedings (Beltran v. Abad, Bar Matter No. 139, 1984).
Allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a pleading is an unauthorized practice of law. The
preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving the practice of law, which is
reserved exclusively for members of the legal profession. Although he may delegate the signing
of a pleading to another lawyer, he may not delegate it to a non-lawyer (Tapay v. Bancolo, A.C.
No. 9604, 2013).
In the case of Angeles v. Bagay (A.C. No. 8103, 2014), the lawyer left the country and left his
office open and his secretary in charge during his absence. This enabled his secretary to sign
as notary public on his behalf and to notarize documents without restraint. Through his
negligence he allowed an unauthorized person to practice law, in violation of Canon 9 of the
CPR.
A lawyer may not, without aiding the unauthorized practice of law by a layman, establish a law
office with one who has not been licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court (U.S. v. Ney &
Bosque, G.R. No. 3593, 1907).
There is unauthorized practice of law when a successful bar examinee who has taken the oath
appears as counsel before having signed the Roll of Attorneys. In order to be a full-fledged
lawyer, one must have passed the exam, taken the oath and signed the Roll (Aguirre v. Rana,
B.M. No. 1036, 2003).
The lawyer demonstrated good faith when he filed a Petition to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It was
not a third party who called the Court's attention to his omission of mistakenly assuming the
attendance record during the oath taking as the Roll of Attorneys. However, the petitioner
cannot be fully exculpated from all liability for his years of inaction. The unauthorized practice of
law by the lawyer himself is subsumed under Canon 9 of the CPR (In re: Petition to Sign Roll of
Attorneys by Michael A. Medado, B.M. No. 2540, 2013).
Unauthorized practice of law: Suspension from practice
The unauthorized practice of law of a suspended attorney is a ground for disbarment or

suspension (Feliciano v. Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015).
Suspension by the Court necessarily includes suspension from any activity that would constitute
practice of law, as defined in Cayetano v. Monsod. A suspended lawyer cannot keep his
government position that requires the application of law as such will constitute as unauthorized
practice of law (Lingan v. Calubaquib and Baliga, A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014).
Intervention of Intermediary Not Allowed
The lawyer’s relation with his client is personal and his responsibility is direct to the client. He
should avoid all relations which direct the performance of his duties by or in the interest of such
intermediary (Canon 35, CPE).
A lawyer may accept employment from any organization and render legal services in any matter
in which the organization as an entity is interested, or may give legal opinion on problems
common to all members. But he should not render legal services to members of such
organization in respect to their individual affairs, unless his services are individually retained by
such members (Canon 35, CPE).
Employment of paralegals: Giving legal materials & answering questions relating to legal
concepts is equivalent to the practice of law (Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., Bar Matter No. 553,
1993).
Lawyers Shall Not Divide Fees with Non-lawyers
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law, except:
a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the
latter’s death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to
persons specified in the agreement; or
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased
lawyer; or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if
the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profitable sharing arrangement.
Impropriety arises where the effect of the arrangement is to:

1. Make the estate or heir a member of the partnership along w/ the surviving partners
2. Makes the estate or heir the recipient of a percentage of the fees that may be paid from the
future business of the deceased lawyer’s clients.
A lawyer who agrees with a non-lawyer to divide attorney’s fees paid by clients supplied or
solicited by the non-lawyer is guilty of malpractice (Tan Tek Beng v. David, Adm.Case No. 1261,
1983).
A Lawyer Shall Not Charge Lower Rates to Attract Business
A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant (Rule 2.04, CPR). However, the rule does not prohibit a lawyer from
charging a reduced fee or none at all to an indigent or to a person who would have difficulty
paying the fee usually charged for such services (Comments of the IBP Committee that drafted
the Code, p. 12).
DUTIES TO THE COURTS ( CANONS 10-13)
A lawyer is an officer of the court. He is an officer of the court because he is one with the court
in upholding justice. His first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that
end, his client’s success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of the law and ethics of the profession (City Sheriff, Illigan City v.
Fortunato, G.R. No. 80390, 1998).
Should there be a conflict of between the lawyer’s duty to the courts and to that of his client, he
should uphold his duty to the former (Cobb-Perez v. Lantin, 24 SCRA 291, 1968).
(a) Candor, Fairness, and Good Faith Towards the Courts
Lawyer Should be Candid and Truthful to the Court.
Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court.
A lawyer must conduct his duties and affairs with full respect to the judicial office. Courts are
entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them.
Candor in all dealings is the very essence of honorable membership in the legal profession.
Lawyer is obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends
of justice.
Lawyer Should Do No Falsehood
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.
He should not mislead the court or the adverse party nor make false allegations in a pleading.
A lawyer should seek to preserve the public’s faith in the courts. It is his duty not to conceal the
truth from the court nor mislead it. The courts will not be able to uphold justice if they rely on
false submissions and representations of lawyers. It has been said of a lawyer that as 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
(Lacson, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 113591, 1995).
No client is entitled to receive from the lawyer any service involving dishonesty to the courts
(Comments of the IBP that drafted the Code, p. 53).
A lawyer who made false representations in the certificates against forum shopping is liable
under Rule 10.01 of the CPR and should be held administratively liable (Crisostomo, et al. v.
Nazareno, A.C. No. 6677, 2014).
A lawyer who used the IBP number of his law office partner in signing a pleading for his client
was suspended from the practice of law for 6 months (Bongalonta v. Castillo, CBD Case No.
176, 1995).
A lawyer who conveniently left out a material fact in his pleading that could have a bearing on
the outcome of the case was strongly admonished by the Supreme Court (Santos v. Paguio,
A.M. No. MTJ-93-781, 1993).
Lawyer Should Not Misquote nor Misrepresent
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language of 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.
Knowingly misquoting or misrepresenting is both unprofessional and contemptuous (Agpalo,

Deiparine, Jr. V. CA, G.R. No. 96643, 1993).
Ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings of
the Supreme Court may lose their proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of other courts,
lawyers and the public who may be misled (Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Ass’n.
v. Insular Life, G.R. No. L-25291, 1971).
Lawyer Should Not Misuse the Rules of Procedure
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
The rules of procedure are intended to facilitate the delivery of justice to those whom it is due
without unnecessary expense and waste of time.
A lawyer must remember that he is an officer of the court and any such lawyer who uses the
Rules of Procedure to defeat or frustrate the ends of justice deserves condemnation.
While a lawyer owes fidelity to his client, it shouldn’t be at the expense of truth and the
administration of justice. This includes a deliberate misinterpretation or misreading of the law.
(b) Respect for Courts and Judicial Officers
CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Respect Due to the Courts
A lawyer owes the court the duty to observe and maintain a respectful attitude not for the sake
of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office but for the maintenance of its supreme
importance (Department of Health v. Sy Chi Siong Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 85289, 1989).
Respect of courts helps build the high esteem and regard towards them which is essential to the
proper administration of justice (People v. Carillo, G.R. No. L-283, 1946).
While freedom of the press includes the right to comment on pending judicial cases and the
right to criticize the public and private life of all public officers, without any exception, it does not
safeguard any publication intended to bully courts and judges in order to sway their judgments
on pending cases (In re Sotto, 82 Phil 595, 1949).
Obeying Court Orders
The highest sign of respect to the courts is the lawyer’s obedience to court orders and
processes. Court orders must be respected, however erroneous they may be (De Leon v.
Torres, Adm. Case No. 180, 1956).
Defending Judges from Unjust Criticism
It is a lawyer’s duty as an officer of the court to defend a judge from unfounded criticism or
groundless personal attack (People v. Carillo, G.R. No. L-283, 1946). The lawyer himself should
refrain from subjecting a judge to groundless accusations and discourage others from doing so
(Cabansag v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-8974, 1957).
Respect to the Courts and Judicial Officers
Upholding the dignity and authority of the courts ensures the stability of the judicial institution.
Hence, a lawyer must not file frivolous administrative complaints against judges and court
personnel. While parties may seek the inhibition or disqualification of partial judges, averments
must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Otherwise, lawyers, by their bare
allegations, can overturn the presumption that judges discharge their duties according to the law
and the facts, without fear nor favor (Madrid v. Dealca, A.C. No. 7474, September 9, 2014).
Lawyer Shall Appear in Proper Attire
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Both male and female lawyers must always be in business attire (for male lawyers, “business
attire” means either Barong Tagalog or coat and tie). Appearing in court properly attired helps in
maintaining the dignity and esteem the courts and the legal profession are entitled to. The court
can hold the lawyer in contempt of court if he appears in improper attire (Agpalo, Legal and
Judicial Ethics, p.152-153, 2009).
Lawyer Shall be Punctual
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
A lawyer should show respect due the court by appearing during trial punctually. A lawyer owes
it to his client, court and public to be punctual in attendance and to be concise, and direct in the
trial and disposition of cases. If the lawyer fails attend punctually or has repeated tardiness, the
lawyer might prejudice his client who may be declared non-suited or in default (Id.).
The Supreme Court requires that court sessions must start properly at 8:30 A.M. in the morning
and 2:00 P.M. in the afternoon.
The duty to be punctual also includes prompt compliance with court orders.
Lawyer Shall Abstain from Offensive Language or Behavior
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the courts.
A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified, in keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession (In Re Climaco, A.C. No. 134-J, 1974).
A lawyer pleads; he does not dictate (Rodil v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-49155, 1981).
It is a lawyer’s duty 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. However, he has the right to be zealous, even tenacious, in the
prosecution or defense of the client’s cause (The British Co. v. De los Angeles, G.R. No. L-
33720, 1975).
A lawyer is not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation, and innuendo. The lawyer must
exhaust judicial remedies or await the result thereof to hold a judge to have gravely erred before
filing an administrative case; otherwise, he may be accountable (Flores v. Abesamis, A.M. No.
SC-96-1. 1997).
Judge Should be Courteous to Lawyer to Merit Respect
Observing and maintaining respect is not a one-way duty from a lawyer to a judge. A judge
should also be courteous to counsel for if a judge desires not to be insulted he should start
using temperate language himself (Fernandez v. Bello, G.R. No. L-14277, 1960).
Upholding the Court’s Authority and Dignity
A lawyer, as a member of the bar and as an officer of the court, should uphold the dignity and
authority of the court. He should not promote distrust in the administration of justice (Surigao
Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-27072, 1970).
Lawyer Shall Not Attribute to a Judge Improper Motives
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case.
A lawyer should not make hasty accusations against a judge, before whom he pleads his case,
without any valid ground (People v. Taneo, G.R. No. L-37673, 1933).
A lawyer who seeks the inhibition or disqualification of a judge must establish by clear and
convincing evidence the ground of bias and prejudice of the judge. Bare allegations of partiality
and hostility do not suffice because the presumption is that a judge would undertake his noble
role to dispense justice according to law and the evidence and without fear or favor (Judge
Madrid v. Dealca, A.C. No. 7474, 2014).
This rule however does not preclude a lawyer from criticizing judicial conduct so long as it is
supported by the record or is material to the case (In Re Almacen, supra).
A lawyer who falsifies a court decision must be disbarred. Such act reflects a high degree of
moral turpitude, which mocks the administration of justice (Embido v. Pe, A.C. No. 6832, 2013).
Lawyer Shall Submit Grievances to Proper Authorities
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities
only.
The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel
thereof (Art. VIII, Sec. 6, 1987 Constitution).
A lawyer may only file a complaint with the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court
Administrator, if the case is administrative in nature, or with the Office of the Ombudsman, if
the complaint is criminal.
A lawyer may not file an administrative complaint against a judge, which arises from his judicial
acts, until the lawyer shall have exhausted judicial remedies which result in a finding that the
judge has gravely erred (Flores v. Abesamis, A.M. No. SC-96-1, 1997).
The Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate criminal offenses committed by judges,

regardless if such offense relates to official duties or not. But the Supreme Court has the sole
administrative supervision over judges. Thus, for a criminal case against a judge for falsification
of its Certificate of Service, the Ombudsman must defer to the Supreme Court the factual
determination of whether or not the judge falsified the said Certificate. Absent an administrative
action from the Supreme Court over the judge, the Ombudsman cannot exercise its jurisdiction
over the judge because the same amounts to a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers
(Maceda v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 102781, 1993).
(c) Assistance in the Speedy and Efficient Administration of Justice
Canon 12 - A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies (Art. III, Sec. 16, 1987 Constitution).
It is the duty of an attorney not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an
action or proceeding, or delay any man’s cause, from any corrupt motive or interest (Rule 138,
Sec. 20 (g), ROC).
Duty to Assist in the Administration of Justice
A lawyer is an officer of the court. Hence, his primary duty is not to his client, but the
administration of justice. A lawyer may be able to help the court in the due and orderly
administration of justice by doing no act that obstructs, perverts or impedes the administration of
justice and by faithfully complying with all his duties to the court and to his clients (City Sheriff
case, supra).
Lawyer Should Come to Court Adequately Prepared
Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself
on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its
preference. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the
copies.
Without adequate preparation, the lawyer may not be able to effectively assist the court in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice nor can he serve his client with competence and
diligence. A lawyer’s unpreparedness can also lead to postponements and delays. The duty of a
lawyer to appear on the dates of hearing adequately prepared is an obligation which he owes to
the court as well as the client (Comments of the IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p. 65).
Lawyer Shall Not Resort to Forum Shopping
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer should not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
Forum shopping is the improper practice of going from one court to another in the hope of
securing a favorable relief in one court which another court has denied or the filing of repetitious
suits or proceedings in different courts concerning substantially the same subject matter.
There is also forum shopping when there is an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
favorable opinion in another forum, other than through an appeal or certiorari. Continuously
filing motions for inhibition against Supreme Court Justices based from flimsy to wild
accusations of partiality in order to delay the administration of justice can result in the
disbarment of a lawyer (In re SC Resolution dated 28 April 2003, A.C. 6332, 2012).
A certification against forum shopping is required to be filed with the initiatory pleading; failure to
do so is a ground for dismissal (Rule 7, Sec. 5, ROC).
Test to Determine Forum Shopping: whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or
whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another (First Phil.
International Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 115849, 1996).
Duty to Disclose Pending Case
A disclosure of any pending cases at the time the initiatory pleading is filed must be made, even
if:
1. He has withdrawn the pending case, or it has otherwise been terminated; or
2. The initiatory pleading is not based on the same cause of action as the pending case (Soller
v. Comelec, 339 SCRA 378, 1998).
The Certification Against Forum Shopping Must be Signed by the Party, Not His Counsel
General Rule: The party himself must sign such certification as he has personal knowledge of
the facts stated therein. Only the party himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has
initiated similar actions or proceedings in courts or agencies (Digital Microware Corp. v. CA,
G.R. No. 128550, 2000).
Exception: A certification executed by counsel of the party must certify that he has personal
knowledge of the facts stated therein and must give a justifiable reason or explanation why the
party himself cannot sign the certification (Ortiz v. CA, G.R. No. 127393, 1998).
When there are two or more plaintiffs or petitioners, all of them must sign the certification,
unless one is authorized to sign on behalf of the others. If the party is a juridical person, it has to
be executed by a corporate officer or agent duly authorized by its board.
Sanctions for Non-filing of Certificate Against Forum Shopping and Failure to Comply
With its Requirements
Failure to comply shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing.
The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein
shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative
and criminal actions.
Sanctions for willful and deliberate forum shopping:
1. Summary dismissal of all actions, with prejudice;

2. Criminal, civil and/or administrative liability;
3. Direct contempt of court.
Lawyer to Temper Client’s Propensity to Litigate
A lawyer should resist the whims and caprices of his client and temper his client’s propensity to
litigate (Cobb-Perez v. Lantin, G.R. No. L-22320, 1968). A lawyer has an affirmative duty to
check useless litigations, willful violation of which may subject him to appropriate disciplinary
action (Arambulo v. Perez, G.R. No. L-185, 1947) or render him liable for costs of litigation
(Pajares v. Abad Santos, G.R. No. L-29543, 1969).
Lawyer Shall File His Pleadings Within the Prescribed Period
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.
Where a lawyer’s motion for extension of time to file a pleading, memorandum or brief has
remained un-acted upon by the court, the least that is expected of him is to file within the period
asked for.
If for some reason, he fails to do so, he should nonetheless file it with a motion for leave to
admit the same, explaining the reasons for the delay, or file a manifestation informing the court
that he can no longer file the same (Roxas v. CA, G.R. No. 76549, 1987).
Duty of Lawyer to Inform Court of Client’s Death and Change of Counsel’s Address
It is the duty of a lawyer to inform the court, within 30 days, of the death of his client in a
pending case and if the claim is not extinguished by death, of the name of the deceased’s
representatives, so that substitution can be made. If there is no notice made, the court will
proceed as if the party is alive and its decision thereon is binding upon the heirs of the
deceased (Heirs of Elias Lorilla v. CA., G.R. No. 118655, 2000).
It is also the lawyer’s duty to inform the court of any change of his address. Such duty is part of
a lawyer’s obligation to assist in the early termination of the case. Failure on the lawyer’s part
will result in the binding effect of service done at the lawyer’s unchanged address of record
(City Sheriff v. Fortunato, supra).
Lawyer Shall Not Abuse Court Processes
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a cause, impede the execution of a judgment,
or misuse court processes.
It is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that once a judgment has
become final, the winning party be not, through subterfuge and misuses of legal process, be
deprived of that verdict (Likim Tho v. Sanchez, G.R. No. L-2676, 1949).
Lawyer to Discourage Appellate Review
If a lawyer is honestly convinced of the futility of an appeal in a civil suit, he should not hesitate
to inform his disappointed client that most likely the verdict will not be altered (Castaneda v.
Ago, G.R. No. L-28546, 1975).
A lawyer who interposes an appeal manifestly for the purpose delay does so with full awareness
of his responsibility as an officer of the court and of the risk of being disciplined therefore
(Samar Mining Co. v. Arnado, G.R. No. L-22304, 1968).
Lawyer Shall Not Talk to Witness During Recess
Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during the break or recess
in the trial, while the witness is still under examination.
Purpose: To avoid any suspicion that he is coaching the witness what to say during the
resumption of the examination (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 173, 2009).
Lawyer Shall Not Assist a Witness to Misrepresent
Rules 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.
While he may interview witnesses in advance or attend to their needs if they are poor and have
no adequate means of defraying their own expenses, (People v. Elizaga, G.R. No. L-2487,
1950) the lawyer must avoid any action that may be misinterpreted as an attempt to influence
the testimony of a witness (Id.).
Lawyer Shall Not Harass a Witness

Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
Lawyer Shall Avoid Testifying for a Client
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.
Lawyers are partisans, actively advocating the case. Witnesses, on the other hand, are
expected to tell facts as they recall them. If lawyers become witnesses, there is now doubt on
their fairness and impartiality. Hence, this involves a question of propriety more than
competency (Santiago v. Rafanan, A.C. 6252, 2004).
While the law does not disqualify a lawyer from being a witness and an advocate at the same
time, the practice is frowned upon. It may be done when absolutely necessary and the lawyer
must withdraw from active management of the case (Phil. National Bank v. Uy Teng Piao, G.R.
No. L-35252,1932).
(d) Reliance on merits of his/her cause and avoidance of any impropriety which tends to
influence or gives the appearance of influence upon the courts
Lawyer Should Rely on the Merits of His Case and Refrain from Impropriety
Canon 13 - A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence or give the appearance of influencing the court.
Improper acts of lawyer which give the appearance of influencing the court to decide case in a
particular way lessen the confidence of the public in the impartial administration of justice, and
should be avoided (Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p. 70).
Some acts considered improper
1. Despite the pending cases and the notice of the Supreme Court to cease, the unions
intensified their picketing by setting quarters on the pavement in front of the Supreme Court,
obstructing the passageway, littering the area, raising placards, and using loud speakers all
day long (Nestle Philippines v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 75209, 1987).
2. A lawyer who, in a newspaper article, asked the Supreme Court to dispel rumors that it
would rule on the Plunder Law as unconstitutional was guilty of indirect contempt (In re: De
Vera, A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC, 2002; In re: De Vera, A.C. No. 6052, 2003).
3. The recording of the trial of then President Estrada in the Sandiganbayan should not be
televised real-time; otherwise, public opinion may affect the regularity and fairness of the
trial (Perez v. Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, 2001).
Lawyer Shall Not Extend Hospitality or Extraordinary Attention to a Judge

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek
opportunity for cultivating familiarity with judges.
Such attitude may subject both the judge and the lawyer to suspicion. It is not, however,
incumbent on a lawyer to refuse professional employment in a case because it may be heard by
a judge who is his relative, compadre or former colleague. The responsibility is on the judge not
to sit in a case unless he is both free from bias and from the appearance thereof (Bautista v.
Rebueno, G.R. No. L-46117, 1978).
Lawyer Shall Not Publicly Discuss Pending Cases
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.
Newspaper publications by a lawyer concerning a pending litigation may interfere with a fair trial
in court and otherwise prejudice the impartial administration of justice (Cruz v. Salva, G.R. No.
L-12871, 1959; Martelino v. Alejandro, G.R. No. L-30894, 1970). The restriction does not
prohibit issuance of statements by public officials charged with the duty of prosecuting or
defending actions in court.
However, such statements should avoid any statement of fact likely to create an adverse
attitude in the public mind respecting the alleged actions of the defendants to the pending
proceedings.
Criticism of Pending and Concluded Litigation
The court, in a pending litigation, must be shielded from embarrassment or influence in its all-
important duty of deciding the case. However, once litigation is concluded, the judge who
decided it is subject to the same criticism as other people (In re Gomez, 43 Phil. 376, 1922)
because then his ruling becomes public property and is thrown open to public consumption
(Strebel v. Figueras, G.R. No. L-4722, 1974; In re Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, 1970).
In a concluded litigation, a lawyer enjoys wide latitude of comment on or criticism of the judge’s
decision or his actuation.
Sub-judice rule
A newspaper publication tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in

administering justice in a pending case constitutes criminal contempt, but the rule is otherwise
after the litigation is ended (In re Abistado, 557 Phil. 668, 1932; In re Lozano, 54 Phil. 801,
1930).
Limitations on the Right to Criticize
The right of a lawyer to comment on or criticize the decision of a judge or his actuation is not
unlimited.
It “is the cardinal condition of such criticism that it shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety” (In re Almacen, supra).
Respect for the judiciary cannot be had if persons are privileged to scorn the resolution of the
court adopted for good purposes and if such persons are to be permitted by subterranean
means to diffuse inaccurate accounts of confidential proceedings to the embarrassment of the
parties and the court (In re Lozano, 54 Phil. 801, 1930; In re Abistado, 57 Phil. 668, 1932).
Right and Duty of Lawyer to Criticize Courts
As a citizen and officer of the court, a lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right but also
to consider it his duty to expose the shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and judges.
Courts and judges are not sacrosanct. They should expect critical evaluation of their
performance.
Lawyer Shall Not Invite Interference by Another Branch of Government
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency
of government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.
The basis for this rule is the principle of separation of powers.
A lawyer filed in the Office of the President a so-called complaint against the justices of the
Supreme Court for their alleged biases and ignorance of the law. But the lawyer forgets the
separation of powers. The Judicial Department is third branch of government, vested with
judicial power. The Supreme Court is, indeed, supreme — the President nor any other
department or agency may not pass judgment on it (Maglasang v. People, G.R. No. 90083,
1990).
CONTEMPT
Direct Contempt (Rule 71, Sec.1, ROC)
A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt

the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities
toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or
deposition when lawfully required to do so.
Penalty: Punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding
ten (10) days, or both, if it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or by
a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it
be a lower court.
Indirect Contempt (Rule 71, Sec.3, ROC)
A person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt: (DRAMA-
FID)
1. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court,

including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real
property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or
attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of
executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given
to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
2. The Rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by
virtue of an order or process of a court held by him.
3. Any Abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not
constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
4. Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official
transactions;
5. Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;
6. Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
7. Any Improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice;
8. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court,
including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real
property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or
attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of
executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given
to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
Penalty: If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against a RTC or a
court of equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand
pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both.
If he is adjudged guilty of contempt committed against a lower court, he may be punished by a

fine not exceeding five thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) month, or both.
If the contempt consists in the violation of a writ of injunction, temporary restraining order or
status quo order, he may also be ordered to make complete restitution to the party injured by
such violation of the property involved or such amount as may be alleged and proved.
DUTIES TO THE CLIENTS (CANONS 14-22)
Nature of the Client-relationship
A lawyer is more than an agent or servant since he possesses special powers of trust and
confidence, independence and powers superior to those of an ordinary agent aside from being
an officer of the court (Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.105938,1996).
Characteristics of the Relationship: (PCF)

1. Strictly personal;
2. Highly confidential; and
3. Fiduciary.
In sum, the relationship between a lawyer and his client of one of trust and confidence. (Agpalo,
Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 182, 2009)
Relationship as Strictly Personal
Features:
 Involves mutual trust and confidence of the highest degree;
 Court or administrative tribunal must take client’s word on the creation or existence of the
relationship;
 Should not be established out of pressure or deception;
 Prohibits delegation of the relationship in favor of another attorney without the client’s
consent;
 Can be terminated at any time at the will of the client, with or without cause;
 Cannot be terminated at the will of the lawyer without consent of the client or the court;
 The relationship terminates upon the death of either the client or the attorney.
However, a lawyer is not required to adapt a client’s troubles as his own as a professional
detachment will better serve the interest of the client and keep his professional conduct within
ethical bounds (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p.184, 2009).
Relation as Fiduciary and Confidential
The relation is a very delicate, exacting and confidential character (Daroy v. Legaspi, A.M. No.
936, 1975; In re de la Rosa, 27 Phil. 258, 1914; Canon 15, CPR) entailing responsibilities that
must be reconciled with the lawyer’s duties to the court, the bar and the public.
Demands from the lawyer (Daroy v. Legaspi, supra)
1. Undivided allegiance, conspicuous and high degree of good faith, loyalty, fidelity;
2. Disinterestedness, Candor, Fairness;
3. Absolute integrity in all his dealings with clients;
4. Renunciation of any personal advantage, direct or indirect, that conflicts with client’s interest.
Rules Protective of Relation
Public interest requires that the personal, confidential and fiduciary relationship between the
attorney and client be preserved and protected (Hernandez v. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-16223,
1920; Go Beltran v. Fernandez, A.M. No. 747, 1940).
Only faithful adherence to the rules can safeguard the trust and confidence placed by a client on
his attorney, and the Supreme Court subjects violators of the rules to discipline and
administrative liability in order to protect the public, the courts and the clients from dishonesty
and incompetence of unfaithful lawyers (Hernandez v. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-16223, 1920).
Attorney-Client Relationship
Q: When is an attorney-client relationship deemed to exist?
A: An attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a lawyer voluntarily permits or acquiesces

with the consultation of a person, who in respect to a business or trouble of any kind, consults a
lawyer with a view of obtaining professional advice or assistance (Uy v. Gonzales, A.C. No.
5280, 2004).
Sufficiency of Professional Employment
1. Formality is not an essential element, as the contract may be express or implied;

2. In the absence of a written contract, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish a
professional relationship;
3. What is necessary to establish is that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and
received in any manner pertinent to his profession;
4. It is not necessary that:
a. a fee was paid or promised to be paid;
b. the lawyer was previously employed by the client;
c. the attorney consulted undertook the case; or that
d. confidential information was confided or acquired by the attorney.
Concept of Retainer
A retainer refers to:

 The act of the client by which he engages the services of an attorney to render legal advice,
or to defend or prosecute his cause in court; or
 The fee a client pays to an attorney when he is retained, a “retaining fee”, paid to insure and
secure his future services and to compensate counsel for being forbidden from acting as
counsel for the other party (Hilado v. David, G.R. No. L-961, 1949).
Note: The proper time for a lawyer to deal with the issue of his attorney’s fees is at the
commencement of the lawyer-client relationship (Fajardo v. Bugaring, A.C. No. 5113, 2004).
Kinds of Retainer Agreements:
1. General Retainer - The purpose is to secure beforehand the services of an attorney for any
legal problem that may afterward arise.
2. Special Retainer - The purpose is to a particular case or service (Agpalo, Legal and
Judicial Ethics, p.186).
Necessity of retainer
 An attorney has no power to represent or appear in court on behalf of a client
without being retained or employed;
 There must be a contract of employment, express or implied, between the lawyer
and the client or the client’s representative (Hilado v. David, supra).
Employment of the law firm
1. A professional relationship arises when a client seeks and is given advice by a member of
the law firm.
2. Employment of the law firm is employment of all the members thereof and employment of a
member of the firm is employment of the law firm (Hilado v. David, supra).
3. A member of the firm acts in the name and interest of the firm, thus information disclosed to
him as a member of the firm is deemed disclosed to the firm.
4. Employment of the firm results in the continuation of the professional relationship after the
death of the counsel.
5. Notice to a law firm as counsel of record is deemed to be notice to all the members of the
firm (Trust International Corporation v. Pelaez, G.R. No. 164871, 2006).
Who can employ (L-MAE-WB)
1. Any person with Legal capacity;

2. Minors or incapacitated persons with the assistance of guardian ad litem;
3. Agents with special power of attorney with regard to principal’s property or interest;
4. Executors or administrators or trustee, on behalf of the estate or beneficiary;
5. Wife in instances where law allows her to sue or be sued on her own; and,
6. Board of directors of a corporation, a corporate officer with delegated power to be hire an
attorney or a stockholder in a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation.
(a) Availability of Service Without Discrimination
Canon 14 – A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.
General Rule: While the primary task of the lawyer as advocate is to represent a party litigant in
court, he is not obliged to act as counsel for any person who wishes to become his client.
Exception: Under Canon 14, when rendering free legal services to the needy and oppressed
who are unable to pay attorney’s fees (Canon 14, CPR; Comments of IBP Committee that
drafted the Code, p. 75) in order to aid the plight of the needy and in fulfillment of the IBP’s goal
to make legal services available to those who need them.
 A lawyer-client relationship is not merely contractual in nature. Lawyering is not a
moneymaking venture. Lawyer has powers superior to those of an ordinary agent.
 A lawyer’s first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice.
 Creation of lawyer-client relationship – when a lawyer’s services were solicited or offered
to the client and such client accepted these services.
 The poor and the indigent should not be further disadvantaged by a lack of access to the
Philippine legal system.
 Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Service – 60 hours a year
(i) Services regardless of a person's status
Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the
latter’s race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt
of the said person.
1. A lawyer may ethically defend a person whom he believes to be guilty.

2. A defense counsel who referred to his clients as the culprits that “salvaged” the victim, has
shown discrimination (Francisco v Portugal, A.C. No. 6155, 2006).
A lawyer should not decline to represent an unpopular client regardless of his personal feelings
(Rule 138, Sec. 20(h), ROC; Rule 14.01, CPR) on the guilt or innocence of the accused. History
shows that while he may champion an unpopular client or cause, he receives accolades from
his peers in the bar. (Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, pp. 75-76). This is
distinct from a situation where a lawyer who knows that his client is guilty, in which case he
cannot put up an honest and whole-hearted defense.
Lawyer shall not decline appointment by the court or by the IBP
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.
Features:
1. A client-attorney relation is created not only by agreement but also by appointment; and,
2. The lawyer owes the same duty to the indigent litigant as to a paying client (People v.
Estebia, G.R. No. L-26868, 1969; People v. Ingco, G.R. No. L-32994, 1971; Ledesma v.
Climaco, G.R. No. L-23815, 1974).
The lawyer is duty-bound to render the required service unless he is excused by the court upon
sufficient cause shown (Rule 138, Sec. 31, ROC).
A counsel de officio is expected to do his utmost as an opportunity to assist in the proper

dispensation of justice. Mere presence in the court is not enough.
(ii) Service as Counsel de Officio
What is counsel de officio?
A court may assign a lawyer 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 a lawyer and that
the services of a counsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice.
A counsel de officio is expected to render effective service wand to exert his best efforts on
behalf of an indigent accused. He has as high a duty to a poor litigant as to a playing client. He
should as a vanguard in the bastion of justice have a bigger dose of social conscience and a
little less of self-interest. He should ever be conscious of his duty to the indigent whom he
defends (Lames v. Lascieras, AM No. 1919, 1979).
Q: Who may be appointed counsel de officio?
A: The court, considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may
arise, shall appoint as counsel de officio such members of the bar in good standing who, by
reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend the accused. But in localities
where such members of the bar are not available, the court may appoint any person, resident of
the province and of good repute for probity and ability, to defend the accused (Rule 116, Sec. 7,
ROC).
Q: Are all counsel de officio lawyers?
A: No. In localities where members of the Bar are not available, the court may appoint any
person, resident of the province and good repute for probity and ability, to defend the accused
(Rule 116, Sec. 7, ROC).
When assigned; In criminal actions
In criminal actions, a counsel de officio is assigned before arraignment and accused has not
named a counsel of choice (Rule 116, Sec. 6, ROC).
1. Upon filing of the notice of appeal in the RTC, CA or SC and the clerk of court inquires if
appellant desires that a counsel de officio to be appointed; (Rule 122, Sec. 13, ROC)
2. If it appears from the record as transmitted that the accused:
a. is in prison;
b. is without counsel de parte on appeal; or,
c. has signed the notice of appeal himself, the clerk of court may designate a counsel
de officio;
3. An appellant not confined in prison may, upon request, be assigned a counsel de officio
within 10 days from receipt of notice to file brief and establishment of right thereto (Rule
124, Sec. 2, ROC);
4. 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 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 by the court for sufficient cause shown (Rule 138,
Sec. 31, ROC);
5. If a criminal case is pending in a location where there are no available practicing lawyers,
the city or municipal judge concerned shall immediately recommend to the nearest District
Judge the appointment of a counsel de officio, and the District Judge shall appoint a
municipal judge or a lawyer employed in any branch, subdivision, or instrumentality of the
government within the province as counsel de officio for the indigent. The services shall be
duly compensated by the Government in accordance with Rule 138, Sec. 32 (P.D. 543,
1974).
When not assigned:
1. Accused previously manifested to acquire services of counsel de parte, otherwise the

accused’s right to counsel of choice is violated and judgment may be set aside (People v.
Malunsing, G.R. No. L-29015, 1975).
2. Right to counsel of choice is violated when:
a. Accused informed trial court his desire to acquire counsel of choice;
b. A counsel de officio is appoint;
c. Accused protests appointment and actions of counsel de officio (People v. Solis, G.R.
No. L-33957, 1984).
Frequent appointment of the same counsel discouraged
The accused may be denied affective assistance when a lawyer is repeatedly appointed as
counsel de officio by the court as:
1. He may be overburdened by his regular practice and have little time for his de officio cases;
or,
2. He may treat de officio cases as a regular source of income and be inordinately eager to
finish his cases and collect fees (People v. Daeng, G.R. No. L-34091, 1973).
Lawyer shall observe the same standards for all clients.
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.
Characteristics
1. The purpose of the legal profession is public service and secure justice; livelihood is only a
secondary consideration (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 12, 2009).
2. The attorney’s fees or the client’s ability to pay should not determine the devotion of a
lawyer to his client’s cause (Operel v. Abaria, A.C. No. 959, 1971; People v. Estebia, G.R.
No. L-26868, 1969).
3. The fact that an attorney merely volunteers his services or that he is diminish or alter the
degree of professional responsibility owed to his client (People v. Rio, G.R. No. 90294,
1991; Ed Vincent S. Albano, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 77 2004). Failure to pay the agreed
fees does not warrant abandonment of the client’s case (In re Montague & Dominguez, G.R.
No. 1107, 1904).
Lawyers who devoted their professional practice in representing litigants who could ill afford
legal service deserve commendation. However, this mantle of public service will not deliver the
lawyer, no matter how well meaning, from the consequences of negligent acts. It is not enough
to say that all pauper litigants should be assured of legal representation. They deserve quality
representation as well (Canoy v. Ortiz, A.C. No. 5485, 2005).
(iii) Valid grounds for refusal to serve
RULE 14.03 – A Lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client
unless:
a. He is not in the 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.
General Rule: A lawyer is not obligated to represent any person who wishes to be his client
(Enriquez v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-12817, 1960).
Exceptions:
1. A lawyer may not refuse to represent indigent client UNLESS (People v. Irisuilo, G.R. No. L-
1473, 1948; Ledesma v. Climaco, G.R. No. L-23815, 1974) he is relieved by the court for
sufficient cause, such as when:
a. He is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently; or
b. There exists a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client.
2. A government lawyer called upon to represent the government, any of its agencies or any
officer thereof UNLESS he is disqualified to act as counsel (Enriquez, Sr. v. Gimenez, G.R.
No. L-121817; Reyes v. Cornista, G.R. No. L-55555, 1953; Municipality of Bocaue v.
Manotok, G.R. No. L-6528, 1953; Aquador v. Enerio, G.R. No. L-20388, 1971; Callejo v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156413, 2004)
The Solicitor General, in cases requiring him to act on behalf of the government, should not
decline to appear in court without a just and valid reason (Gonzales v. Chavez, G.R. No. 97351,
1992) even in cases where two government agencies are at odds against each other.
A lawyer must accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle, otherwise the interests
of his clients will suffer (Parias v. Paguinto, A.C. 6297, 2004).
(b) Candor, Fairness and Loyalty to Clients
Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client.
1. In his dealings with his client, a lawyer must conduct himself with integrity in a manner
beyond approach.
2. A lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain, he abuses
or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by the client.
Duty to preserve the client’s confidence
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.
To hide from the complainant, avoid his calls, ignore his letters, and leave him helpless is
unforgivable; and to commit all these acts and omissions after receiving the full amount of legal
fees and after assuring the client of his commitment and responsibility violates the Code of
Professional Responsibility (Overgaard v. Valdez, A.C. 7902, 2008).
(i) Confidentiality Rule
Canon 21 – A lawyer shall preserve the confidence of his client even after the attorney-
client relationship is terminated.
Duty to preserve the client’s confidence
Rule 21.01 – A lawyer shall not reveal the confidence or secrets of his clients 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.
A lawyer has the duty to preserve the secrets of his clients, including prospective clients, even
at his own peril. Safeguarding these secrets requires the application of both ethical and
evidentiary considerations.
It is important to distinguish between information disclosed “in confidence” or as a “secret”,

versus information that may be secured elsewhere—the privilege covers only the first type of
information.
Rule 130, Sec 21(b) of the Rules of Court makes confidential communication between lawyer
and client privileged and neither party may be compelled to disclose such private
communication.
Duration of duty
This is a perpetual duty that continues even after the attorney-client relationship has been
terminated (Canon 21, CPE; Canon 37, CPR) or the death of the client for once professional
confidence is reposed it cannot be divested by either event.
An attorney is forbidden:
1. To do anything which will injuriously affect his former client; and

2. To disclose or use against the client information gained by virtue of the professional
relationship.
General Rule: The protection of the attorney and client privilege is perpetual.
Exceptions:
1. When removed by the client himself (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p.266, 2009);
2. When removed after the death of the client by his heir or legal representative (Id.);
3. When a supervening act done pursuant to the purpose of the communication causes such
communication to lose its privileged character such as:
1. communication sent by client through his attorney once it has reached third party
recipient (Uy Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society, G.R. No. L-9231, 1915); or,
2. the contents of a pleading before it is filed (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p.266,
2009).
Suing one’s attorney may result in the termination of the attorney-client relationship. It is
incompatible with the mutual confidence and trust essential to every attorney-client relationship.
Hence, it was held in this case that the attorney-client relationship was implicitly terminated by
the client upon the filing of a civil suit against his lawyer. The civil suit for rescission resulted in
the termination of the attorney-client relationship. The object of the civil suit resulted in a conflict
of interest (Pfelider v. Palanca, A.C. No. 927, 1970).
Lawyer shall not use client’s secret without his consent
Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information
acquired in the course of his 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.
Use of client’s secrets by the lawyer to the client’s disadvantage or to the lawyer’s or a third
person’s advantage deals a blow to the attorney-client relationship (Nombrado v. Hernandez,
A.C. No. 555, 1968).
Lawyer shall not give information from his files
Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give information
from his file to an outside agency seeking such information for auditing, statistical
bookkeeping, accounting, processing or any other similar purpose.
The work products of a lawyer, contained in his files, are privileged matters that neither the
lawyer nor his heir or legal representative may not give out without his client’s consent.
The file cabinet of a lawyer containing his client’s records and documents may not be ordered
opened because that would be tantamount to compelling him to divulge the client’s confidence
in violation of the law imposing upon him the duty to strictly preserve the client’s secrets (People
v Sy Juco, G.R. No. L-41957, 1937).
Lawyer may disclose affairs of client to partners
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.
Partners and practitioners who held supervisory capacities are legally responsible to exert
ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled by
the persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary
efforts to foreclose he occurrence of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by
persons under their charge (Solatan v Inocentes, A.C. No. 6504, 2005).
Lawyer Shall Adopt Measures Against Disclosures of Client’s Secrets and Shall Avoid
Indiscreet Conversation about Client’s Affairs
Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent those
whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of
the client.
Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client’s affairs even with
members of his family.
Indiscreet conversations about client’s affairs are prohibited in order to better preserve the
client’s confidences and to avoid prejudice to the client and loss of respect to the legal
profession (Comments of the IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p. 120).
Lawyer Shall Not Reveal His Having Been Consulted
Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular case
except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
General Rule:
1. Revealing that a lawyer has been consulted is tantamount to revealing the confidences and
secrets of the client;
2. The rule on privileged communications extends to matters disclosed by a prospective client;
3. This applies even when the lawyer does not accept the employment, as the disclosure and
the lawyer’s opinion on the matter already create an attorney-client relationship.
Exception: When the lawyer will be placed in a situation of representing conflicting interests.
(ii) Privileged communications
Requisites: (AC-ConProf)
1. There exists an Attorney-Client relationship, or a prospective attorney-client relationship,
and it is by reason of this relationship that the client made the communication;
2. The client made the communication in Confidence;
3. The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his Professional capacity (Jimenez v.
Atty. Francisco, A.C. No. 10548, 2014).
Evidentiary Privilege: All the elements inherent in the rule must concur to make the
communication privileged communication against disclosure (Mercado v. Vitriolo, A.C. No. 5108,
2005).
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is on the person asserting the privilege, unless the document itself is prima
facie privileged. The mere assertion that the document is privileged is insufficient (Agpalo, Legal
and Judicial Ethics).
Relation of attorney and client
The privilege is only extended to communications between a client and a lawyer, and does not
extend to a person who is not a lawyer. However, one who poses as a lawyer with ulterior
motives and to whom the client confides to is protected by the privilege (Agpalo, Legal and
Judicial Ethics, p.273, 2009).
The communication must be in accordance with the purpose of the attorney-client relation,
otherwise it is not privileged (Pfleider v. Palanca, A.C. No. 927, 1970).
The privilege extends only to communications within the lawful employment of the lawyer and
not to those involving crime or fraud, and in that case no attorney-client privilege attaches
(Genero v. Silapan, A.C. No. 4078, 2003).
When a person goes to an attorney to bare his personal secrets and sensitive documents for
the purpose of obtaining legal advice and assistance, a lawyer-client relationship arises. Among
the burdens of such relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer to keep inviolate confidential
information acquired or revealed during legal consultations. The fact that one is, at the end of
the day, not inclined to handle the client’s case is hardly of consequence. The Supreme Court
has previously held that if a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of any kind,
consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney
voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then the professional employment is
established (Hadjula v. Madianda, A.C. No. 6711, 2007).
Confidentiality
Not only must there be an attorney-client relationship, the client must intend the communication
be confidential, intended only for seeking legal advice from the attorney and not for the
information of third persons (Uy Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society, G.R. No.L-9231, 1915).
A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client
relationship is terminated. But not all information can be considered as confidential, such as
those considered as public information. In one case, a corporation's retained counsel had
knowledge of proposed by-law amendments to allow teleconferencing in meetings. His services
were terminated. Subsequently, the lawyer appeared as proxy for one stockholder in a
stockholder's meeting, and opposed the appearance of certain board members at the meeting
via teleconference on the ground that the by-laws had not been amended yet. The court held
that the information about the necessity of amendment could not be considered as “confidential
information”. For one, the SEC also requires the submission of copies of the amendments or
the new by-laws attached to the original articles of incorporation. Thus, the documents are
public records and cannot be considered confidential (Rebecca J. Palm v. Atty Felipe Iledan,
A.C. No. 8242, 2009).
Confidentiality is not affected by the fact that:

1. A third person overheard the information intended to be confidential;
2. Other attorneys represented the client.
However, the confidentiality rule does not apply when the client uses the lawyer as an
intermediary between himself and a third person (Uy Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society,
G.R. No. L-9231, 1915).
When is communication confidential?
It is when information is transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between attorney and client in
confidence and by a means of which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to
no third person other than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or
the accomplishment of the purpose it was given (Agpalo, citing Brown v. Saint Paul City R.Co.,
62 NW2d 688, 44 ALR 535, 1954).
Form or mode of communication
There is no particular mode, but the question to ask is whether it was intended to be part of the
communication by the client to the attorney in connection with legal advice sought or given (San
Francisco v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 37 Cal2d 227, 231, P2d 26, 25 ALR2d 1418,
1951).
The rule covers (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 115439-41, 1997):
1. Written;
2. Oral;
3. Actions, signs or other means of communication
Communication may be transmitted: (DAO)

1. Directly;
2. Through an Agent, whether the client’s or attorney’s;
3. Through any Other form of transmission.
Persons entitled to claim privilege
Who are covered by the privilege? (MISS-ACES)

1. Messenger or any other agent of transmitting the communication;
2. Interpreter;
3. Stenographer or clerk;
4. Attorney’s Secretary;
5. Attorney;
6. Client;
7. An Expert hired by the client or attorney for effective consultation or communication between
attorney and client during the course of his employment;
8. Student allowed to appear in court for indigent clients accepted by his law school’s legal
clinic.
Who are entitled to claim the privilege?

1. Client, since the privilege is intended primarily for his protection;
2. Lawyer or lawyer’s employee, unless the client does not waive the privilege (In re: Hamilton,
G.R. No. L-7725, 1913);
3. Attorney’s Secretary, stenographer, clerk, unless the attorney and client jointly waive the
privilege (Rule 139, Sec. 21(b), ROC); or,
4. Client’s heir or legal representative, against a stranger to the estate.
Application of the rule
A lawyer may not be compelled or subpoenaed as a witness on communication from a client

which is privileged.
Privileged matters
What are privileged matters? (PD-PAN)

1. The work Products of a lawyer, his effort, research and thought contained in his files;
2. Privileged Documents delivered to attorney and then to the client (Brown v. St. Paul City R.
Co., 62 NWD2d 688, 44 ALR2d 535, 1954);
3. Statements made in a Pleading or in open court in connection with a case the lawyer is
handling (Deles v. Aragona, Jr., Adm. Case No. 598, 1969);
4. Records of an Accident turned over by a party to his attorney (Re: Story, 111 EN2d 385, 36
ALR2d 1312, 1953);
5. Name of the client, if revealing the name exposes client to civil liability or implicate him;
UNLESS:
a. Litigation has Commenced;
b. Identification is related to the Employment of a third person;
c. Attorney was employed for Future fraudulent or criminal transactions;
d. Prosecution of a lawyer for a Criminal offense (Baird v. Koerner, 279 F2d 623, 95
ALR2d 303, 1960).
Matters not privileged
What are not privileged matters?

1. Any communication between attorney and client which lacks one of the elements;
2. Compromise agreements prepared by the attorney for his client and delivered to opposing
party (Uy Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society, G.R. No. L-9231, 1915);
3. An offer and counter offer for settlement;
4. A letter written by a client to his attorney in the possession of a third party (Barton v. Leyte
Asphalt & Mineral Oil Co., G.R. No. L-21237, 1924);
5. Document given by client to his counsel not in his professional capacity (Pfleider v. Palanca,
A.C. No. 927, 1970);
6. Documents given to the lawyer for custodial, business or personal services or assistance;
7. Contracts relating to attorney’s fees (Orient Ins. Co. v. Revilla, G.R. No. 34098, 1930).
Effect of breach
IF IF NOT
PRIVILEGED PRIVILEGED
Disciplinary sanction; Civil liability;
(Canon 37, CPE; Rule (Pfleider v.
138, Sec. 20(e), ROC; Palanca, A.C.
Bautista v. Barrios, No. 927, 1970)
A.M. No. 258, 1963)
Criminal liability
(Article 209, Revised
Penal Code);
Exceptions to attorney-client privilege:

Client’s waiver of privilege
General Rule: Only the client’s consent is necessary to waive the attorney-client privilege.
Exception: When the person to be examined is the attorney’s secretary, stenographer or clerk,
in such case the consent of the attorney is required (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, pp. 285-
286, 2009).
Who may waive the privilege?

1. The client may waive the privilege personally;
2. An attorney retained in a case has an implied authority to waive the privilege concerning
procedural matters in the case. BUT only the client may waive the privilege in cases
involving the attorney’s relation with his client, e.g. breach of client’s confidence on the part
of the attorney.
How is the privilege waived?

Only entirely, not partially; a partial waiver is a waiver of the whole. A client may not waive part
of a privileged document as to the parts that could help his case and not waive those parts that
will adversely affect him (Orient Ins. Co. v. Revilla, G.R. No. 34098, 1930).
Disclosure to protect attorney's rights

The attorney may disclose the confidential communications of his client when:
1. He is charged by either his client or a third person, involving the performance of his duty to
said client;
2. He is suing his client for attorney’s fees;
BUT such disclosure must only be to the extent necessary to secure his rights (Agpalo, Legal
and Judicial Ethics, pp.286-287, 2009).
Communications as to crime
General Rule: Communications about a crime already committed are covered under
privileged communications.
Exceptions: Future criminal acts or plans in aid of such acts are not privileged communication,
UNLESS:
1. The client was not sure if the act was wrong, and the latter desisted from committing the act,
based from his consultation with his attorney.
2. Communications as to fraud
 Communication about a fraud already committed is privileged.
 Communication about a fraud that has yet to be committed is not privileged.
General Rule: A lawyer should name his client. This is grounded on the following principles:
1. Court has right to know;
2. Attorney-client relationship does not exist if there is no client;
3. Privilege pertains to the subject matter of the relationship;
4. Due process for the adversary, in relation to the right to know (Regala v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 105938, 1996).
Exception: However, client’s identity is privileged:

 Where a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s name would implicate that client
in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice;
 Where the disclosure would open the client to civil liability; and
 Where the government’s lawyers have no case against an attorney’s client unless, by
revealing the client’s name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form the
chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime (Regala v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 105938, 1996).
(iii) Conflict of Interest
A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts.
Tests of inconsistency of interests in concurrent or multiple representations
1. Would the acceptance of a new relation prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of
undivided fidelity or loyalty?
2. Would the acceptance of a new relation invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing?
3. In accepting the new relation, will the lawyer be called upon to use confidential
information acquired through their connection, against a client?
Reasons for the prohibition on representing conflicting interests

1. The relationship of trust and confidence, of the highest degree, between attorney and client;
2. The lawyer knows the strength and weakness of his client’s action, and such knowledge
must be guarded;
3. To prevent fraudulent conduct;
4. To prevent a practitioner from putting himself in a position where he may be required to
Choose between conflicting duties;
5. To prevent unfounded suspicion of professional misconduct (Samson v. Atty. Era, A.C. No.
6664, 2013).
Examples of parties and situations involving conflicting interests:

1. Husband and wife in a matrimonial action
2. Contending claimants to the same property
3. A creditor and debtor in a recovery suit
4. Seller and purchaser of property
5. An insurer and an insured
6. Accused and an offended party in a criminal action.
7. Retained counsel of a university appearing for some of the plaintiffs in a case against the
university (Northwestern University v. Arquillo, A.C. No. 6632, 2005).
8. Counsel for a prevailing party in a case, appearing as counsel for the sheriff in a case filed
against the latter by his former client, for negligence in enforcing the writ of execution in the
former case (Gonzales v. Cabucana, A.C. No. 6836, 2006).
9. Lawyer offering services to the accused without disclosing that he was already retained by
the family of the victim.
10. A lawyer who prepares a deed of partition cannot represent any of the heirs in a suit over
the same estate partitioned.

11. A corporate counsel cannot appear as counsel for the Board of Directors in a derivative suit
filed against them (Hornilla v. Salunat, A.C. No. 5804, 2003).
Effect of termination of relation
General Rule: The termination of the attorney-client relationship does not allow a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client.
Exception: Where the former client expressly consents (Senior Marketing Corp. v. Bolinas,
A.C. No. 6740, 2014).
The nature of the attorney-client relationship is one of trust and confidence of the highest
degree. The termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to
represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. Even after the
severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything which will injuriously affect his former
client in any matter in which he previously represented him, nor should he disclose or use any of
the client’s confidences acquired in the previous relation. Fidelity to a client is perpetual (Heirs
of Falame v. Baguio, A.C. No. 6876, 2008).
Materiality of confidential information
The prohibition against representation of conflicting interest applies to an attorney accepting

professional employment from the client’s adversary, may it be in the same case, or a different
one as long as the action is related. The prohibition applies whether or not the lawyer has
acquired confidential information from his former client (Samala v. Valencia, A.C. No. 5439,
2007).
When the attorney is consulted regarding the case by one party, even if he replies that he will
not take the case, an attorney-client relationship is already created. It is not essential that the
client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion nor is it
necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for. Neither is it
material that the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the
consultation was had.
Therefore, since there is already an attorney-client relationship, he is already precluded from

accepting the opposite party’s retainer in the same litigation regardless of what information was
received by him from his first client; that there was no secret communication transmitted would
not vary the situation (Hilado v. David, G.R. No. L-961, 1949).
When an attorney agrees to represent one of the opposing parties, he should know that there
was an obvious conflict of interests, even if claims to believe that they were on the same side.
Representing both sides will tend to deprive the relation of attorney and client of those special
elements which make it one of trust and confidence (Northwestern University v. Arquillo, A.C.
No. 6632, 2005).
Opposing clients in same or related suits
A conflict of interest exists when a lawyer accepts employment from his client’s adversary in a
case involving a related subject matter (Northwestern University v. Arquillo, A.C. No. 6632,
2005).
Where corporate directors or trustees have committed breach of trust through fraud, ultra vires
acts, etc., and the corporation is unwilling to institute suit to remedy wrong, a stockholder may
sue on his behalf for the benefit of the corporation to bring redress to the wrong done to the
corporation and the stockholders. In a derivative suit the corporation is the real party in interest
while the stockholder filing the suit is only a nominal party. The corporation should be included
as a party in the suit. Therefore, in all derivative suit actions, outside counsel must be retained
to represent one of the defendants, or else be guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting
interests. Furthermore, this restriction on dual representation should not be waivable by consent
in the usual way; the corporation is presumptively incapable of giving consent (Hornilla v.
Salunat, A.C. No. 5804, 2003).
Opposing clients in unrelated actions
A lawyer may not appear as counsel for a party against his present client in another totally
unrelated action, for he might not be able to represent both parties properly, or he might be
suspected of disloyalty.
It is of no moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which
the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the
confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the other as the two actions
are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing parties in one case, one of whom would
lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers
with each of them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.
Hence, it was held even if one of the cases is an ejectment case and the other is a replevin
case, the attorney’s representation of opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated,
obviously constitutes conflict of interest or, at the least, invites suspicion of double-dealing
(Quiambao v. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708, 2005).
New clients against former client
The lawyer is prohibited from representing a subsequent client against a former client
ONLY when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the
subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. However, it is
allowable when the controversy is wholly unrelated, provided that notice to previous client is
given.
Conflicting duties
A lawyer may not perform conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic
interests.
Examples of conflicting duties:

1. Being an employee, which attends to a company's legal affairs, and being a member of the
labor union of the company's employees;
2. Being a receiver or partner of a corporation and being an employee of such corporation’s
creditor
3. In a case involving a person’s estate against its creditors, the attorney was at once the
lawyer of the estate, and at the same time, through his accounting firm, giving accounting
services to the creditors. The proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds
application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter and
is applicable however slight such adverse interest may be. It applies although the attorney's
intentions and motives were honest and he acted in good faith. In this case, there is no
question that the interests of the estate and that of its creditors are adverse to each other.
Even granting that respondent's misconduct refers to his accountancy practice, it would not
prevent this Court from disciplining him as a member of the Bar. The rule is settled that a
lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private
activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the
bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law (Nakpil v. Valdez, A.C. No.
2040, 1998).
4. There is said to be inconsistency of interest when on behalf of one client, it is the attorney’s
duty to contend for that which his duty to another client requires him to oppose. Hence, it
was held that a lawyer who filed a case in behalf of one party to annul a deed of sale he
previously prepared for another party is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting
interests (Aninon v. Sabitsana, A.C. No. 5098, 2012).
The prohibition on conflicting duties also prevents a lawyer from: (PPC)

1. Being a counsel in any matter upon the merits of which he has previously intervened as a
Public Officer;
2. Attacking the validity of an instrument which was Prepared by him;
3. Enforcing an agreement against another who was his Client in the preparation thereof.
There is said to be inconsistency of interest when on behalf of one client, it is the attorney’s duty
to contend for that which his duty to another client requires him to oppose. In brief, if he argues
for one client this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. Hence,
it was held that a lawyer who filed a case in behalf of one party to annul a deed of sale he
previously prepared for another party is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests
(Aninon v. Sabitsana, A.C. No. 5098, 2012).
Attorney's interest vs. client's interest
It is improper for an attorney, even with his client's consent, to continue to be his client’s counsel
against a defendant, when the former brings another suit, in his own behalf, if it is uncertain
whether the latter will be able to satisfy both claims. The lawyer may also not have financial
stakes in the subject matter of the suit brought on behalf of his client.
A lawyer is not authorized to have financial stakes in the subject matter of the suit brought in
behalf of his client. In this case, an attorney was the Union President who was among those
who were illegally dismissed. In the illegal dismissal case, he was the attorney representing the
Union and at the same time an interested party, being one of those dismissed. A compromise
was entered and the employer was made to pay a sum to the Union. But before giving the
money to the Union, he secretly took his share from the sum. It was held that defendant failed to
avoid conflict of interests, first, when he negotiated for the compromise agreement wherein he
played the diverse roles of union president, union attorney and interested party being one of the
dismissed employees seeking his own restitution, and thereafter, when he obtained the
attorney’s fees without full prior disclosure of the circumstances justifying such claim to his
client (Gamilla v. Marino Jr., A.C. No. 4763, 2003).
Rules applicable to the law firm

When a lawyer is disqualified from appearing as counsel in a case because of conflict of

interests, his law firm and all its members are also disqualified from said case. Since the
employment of the law firm is considered a retainer of all its members.
Information obtained from a client by a member or assistant of a law firm is information imparted
to the firm. Hence, such an attorney is still disqualified due to conflict of interest even if was his
partner who received the client’s information and replied to it (Hilado v. David, G.R. No. L-961,
1949).
Limitations on the general rule

Rule against representation of conflicting interests does not apply when:
1. The clients knowingly consent to the dual representation;
2. There is no true attorney-client relationship.
Examples:
1. Representing the administrator of the estate of a deceased wife, and the administrator of the
deceased husband
2. Being a prosecutor for rape, and after the marriage with the offended party, as counsel for
the accused asked for the dismissal of the complaint.
Where clients knowingly consent
General Rule: A lawyer may, before the controversy reaches the court, represent conflicting
interests as long as all parties give their express written consent after a full disclosure of the
facts.
Disclosure alone is not enough for the clients must give their informed consent to such
representation. The lawyer must explain to his clients the nature and extent of the conflict and
the possible adverse effect must be thoroughly understood by his clients (Nakpil v. Valdez, A.C.
No. 2040, 1998).
This general rule only applies when one client is a former client, not when both clients
are current clients in the case.
The attorney should also discontinue dual representation when the conflict of interest has
reached such point that the lawyer may be suspected of disloyalty to one client, although he
may not be held administratively liable because of the consent.
Exception: Dual representation, even when there is consent, is not allowed when:
1. The conflict is between the attorney's interest against his clients, in such case the client's
interest is superior.
2. Conflict of interest between a private client against the government and any of its
instrumentalities, in this case dual representation is absolutely prohibited.
Where no true attorney-client relationship exists
The prohibition against the representation of conflicting interests does not apply when there is
no true attorney-client relationship.
The prohibition on conflict of interest however, still applies to an attorney's secretary,

stenographer or clerk, who in such capacity has acquired confidential information from, the
attorney's client, who latter becomes an attorney, even though there is no true-attorney client
relationship.
Effects of representation of conflicting interests
The possible effects of representation of conflicting of interest, in the absence of written consent
of all parties concerned given after a full disclosure of facts are:
1. Disciplinary action
2. Disqualification from representing the new client upon petition of former client
3. When the representation of conflicting interests is unknown and works to the prejudice of the
new client, setting aside of adverse judgment against the new client, provided the both are
present;
a. That the attorney discharge or had the opportunity to discharge conflicting duties
b. And that new client was prejudiced
4. Right to be paid for his services to the former client may be affected, only when:
a. The two matters are related; and,
b. The former client objected to such representation.
(iv) Candid and Honest Advice to Clients
A lawyer should only answer his client’s query, after:

1. Having full knowledge of his client’s cause, and
2. Studying the case.
A lawyer should give a candid and honest opinion on the merits or lack of it on the case, without
understating or overstating the prospects of the case. He should also advise his client to stop
when the action is devoid of merit, and pursue a case when it is meritorious.
(v) Compliance with Laws
In the judicial forum, the client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense
that is authorized by law, and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy in his
defense. A lawyer is required to represent his client within the bounds of the law.
(vi) Concurrent Practice of Another Profession
Lawyers are not precluded from engaging in business. Impropriety arises when the business is
of such a nature or is in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a
member of the bar, i.e. if the business will readily lend itself as a means of procuring
professional employment for him.
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 (Rule
15.08, CPR).
A lawyer-CPA can be held liable for misconduct if he fails to apprise a client in what capacity he
was acting (i.e., whether as an accountant or as a lawyer) (Nakpil v. Valdes, A.C. No. 2040,
1998).
(c) Client’s monies and properties

(ii)Commingling of Funds
Duty Not to Co-Mingle Funds
Rules 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his
own and those of others kept by him.
(iii) Delivery of Funds
Duty to Deliver Funds
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as
may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly
thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
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. A lawyer’s conversion of
funds entrusted to him is a gross violation of professional ethics (Arellano University v Mijares,
A.C. No. 8380, 2009).
The lawyer’s admission of his use of a client’s funds for his personal use constitutes substantial
evidence of malpractice (Velez v De Vera, A.C. No. 6697, 2006).
This rule requires that the client consents to the amount of attorney’s fees and as to the
application of the client's fund to pay his lawful fees and disbursement, with full disclosure on
every detail, without such consent the lawyer may not apply the client’s money for his fees, but
he should instead return the money to his client, without prejudice to his filling a case to recover
his unsatisfied fees.
Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust
and must be immediately turned over to them. Money of the client or collected for the client, and
other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted
for promptly, and should not under any circumstance be commingled with his own or be used by
him. Thus, such acts of an attorney of keeping the money, received for his client, for his
personal benefit, depriving his client of use of money that was rightfully his, and withholding
information regarding their receipt despite inquiries made by the client, is obviously in breach of
professional ethics (Licuanan v. Melo, A.M. No. 2361, 1989).
The lawyer’s continuing exercise of his retaining lien presupposes that the client agrees with the
amount of attorney’s fees to be charged. In case of disagreement or when the client contests
that amount for being unconscionable, however, the lawyer must not arbitrarily apply the funds
in his possession to the payment of his fees. He can file, if he still deems it desirable, the
necessary action or proper motion with the proper court to fix the amount of such fees (Daniel
Lemoine v. Amadeo Balon, Jr. A.C. No. 5829, 2003).
When a lawyer is accused of delay in the delivery of the sum of money due to his client, he must
explain the reason for such a delay. His failure to explain such delay cannot be excused by his
bare allegation that the same had already been transmitted to the complainant (Jerry Wong v.
Atty. Salvador N. Moya, A.C. No. 6972, 2008).
Rebates and Commission
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.
"Whatever the client receives from the opposite party in the service of his client belongs to the
client, in the absence of his client’s consent, after a full disclosure of facts."
Generally "a lawyer may not claim the attorney's fees in the concept of damages awarded by
the court in favor of his client, except when he and his client have agreed that whatever amount
the court may award as attorney's fees would form part of his compensation." (Agpalo, Legal
and Judicial Ethics, p. 249-250, 2009)
(iv) Borrowing or Lending
Duty Not to Borrow from or Lend to Client
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests
are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a
lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
A lawyer asked financial help from his client for the construction of his house and purchase of a
car to which his client willingly helped. However, for such help, the said lawyer paid his client by
issuing a check which was later dishonored. It was held that the act of a lawyer in issuing a
check without sufficient funds constitutes such willful dishonesty and immoral conduct as to
undermine the public confidence in the legal profession. He cannot justify his act of issuing
worthless checks by his dire financial condition. If he suffered a reversal of fortune, he should
have explained with particularity the circumstances which caused his failure to meet his
obligations. His generalized and unsubstantiated allegations as to why he reneged in the
payment of his debts promptly despite repeated demands and sufficient time afforded him
cannot withstand scrutiny (Jerry Wong v. Atty. Salvador N. Moya, A.C. No. 6972, 2008).
Duty Not to Acquire Client's Property
Art. 1491, Civil Code- The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or
judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another: (GAPE-JO)
1. The Guardians, the property of the person or persons who may be under his guardianship;
2. Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been entrusted to them, unless
the consent of the principal has been given;
3. Public officers and employees, the property of the State or of any subdivision thereof, or of
any government-owned or controlled corporation, or institution, the administration of which
has been entrusted to them; this provision shall apply to judges and government experts
who, in any manner whatsoever, take part in the sale;
4. Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration;
5. Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other
officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights
in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory
they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by
assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be
the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.
6. Any Others specially disqualified by law. (NCC, Art. 1491)
The prohibition against acquisition of a client's property does not apply when the subject
property is not involved in litigation. The relationship between the parties is not of a lawyer and a
client but one of business partners (Zalamea v. Atty. de Guzman (A.C. No. 7387, 2016).
(d) Fidelity to client’s cause
Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him.
Generally, any benefit as a result of the abuse of his client’s confidence, inures to the benefit of
the client.
A lawyer should not normally draw a will, which might give a suspicion of undue influence; and if
he were to receive a bequest, such should be reasonable and not more than what he should
receive under the law.
(e) Competence and diligence
(i) Adequate Protection
Canon 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
The lawyer is expected to employ all reasonable steps in the ordinary care of his client.
Lawyer shall not handle a case without adequate preparation
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
The full protection of the client’s interests requires no less than a mastery of the applicable law
and the facts involved in a case, regardless of the nature of the assignment (Agpalo, Legal and
Judicial Ethics, p. 221, 2009).
Inadequate preparations cause adverse effects. It may cast doubt upon the lawyer’s intellectual
honesty and capacity (Cuaresma v. Daquis, G.R. No. L-35113, 1975), which may lead to
embarrassment, disciplinary action or contempt of court (Lim Se v. Argel, G.R. No. L-42800,
1976).
(ii) Negligence
Rule 18.03- A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence
in connection therewith shall render him liable.
(iii) Collaborating Counsel
Rule 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know
that he is not qualified to 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.
The lawyer’s acceptance is an implied representation that he possesses the academic learning,
skill, and ability to handle the case.
(iv) Duty to Apprise Client
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to client’s request for information.
Duty to keep the client fully informed
A lawyer must advise his client promptly whenever he has any information to give which it is
important that the client receive. (Adecer v. Akut, A.C. No. 4809, 2006) He should notify his
client of an adverse decision well within the period to appeal to enable his client to decide
whether to seek an appellate review thereof (Tan v. Dimante, A.C. No. 7766, 2014).
The client is entitled to the fullest disclosure of the more or manner by which his interest is
defended or why certain steps are taken of omitted (Villariasa-Reisenbeck v. Abarrientos. A.C.
No. 6238, 2004).
However, it is also the client’s duty to make proper inquiries from his counsel concerning his
case (Florendo v. Florendo, G.R. No. L-24982, 1969).
(f) Representation With Zeal Within Legal Bounds
Canon 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
(i) Use of Fair and Honest Means
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 or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
Based on this rule, the lawyer should, among other things:

 Not offer in evidence any document which he knows is false;
 Not present any witness whom he know will perjure;
 Only make such defenses which he believes to be debatable under the law;
 Abstain from offensive personalities;

 Not advance a fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless
required to serve justice;
 Not state as fact what he merely expects to accomplish;
 Not, in advocating his client's cause, state his personal belief as to the soundness or justice
of his case.
An attorney’s act of filing a criminal complaint for resistance and disobedience to a person in
authority against the adverse party, for failure to comply with an order of the court, was held to
be a violation of Rule 19.01. Fair play demands that counsel should have filed the proper motion
with RTC to attain his goal and not subject complainant to a premature criminal prosecution
(Atty. Briones v. Atty. Jacinto, A.C. No. 6691, 2007).
A lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded criminal case against the adversaries
of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their
own cases against the lawyer’s client. Thus, a letter sent by counsel to the adverse party, which,
more than just a simple demand to pay, even contained a threat to file retaliatory charges
against the complainant which have nothing to do with his client’s claim for separation pay,
amounted to blackmail and is definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility
(Pena v. Aparicio, A.C. No. 7298, 2007).
Rule 19.01 is violated only when the criminal complaint filed or threatened to be filed is patently
frivolous, meritless and clearly groundless and is aimed solely at gaining the sole purpose of
improper advantage.
Two elements are indispensable before a lawyer can be deemed to have violated this rule
(PG):
1. the filing or threat of filing a Patently frivolous and meritless action or appeal; and,
2. the filing or threat of filing the action is intended to Gain improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
Unless the criminal complaint is patently frivolous and obviously meant to secure an improper
advantage, a lawyer who files such criminal complaint should not be automatically deemed to
have violated Rule 19.01. Otherwise, lawyers who have a valid cause for filing a criminal action
may be compelled not to proceed because of fear of administrative sanctions (Espina v.
Chavez, A.C. No. 7250, 2015).
(ii) Client’s fraud
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.
(iii) Procedure in Handling Cases
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure on handling the
case.
By accepting a retainer, a lawyer implies that he:

 Possesses the requisite degree of learning, skill and ability which is necessary to the
practice of his profession and which other similarly situated possess;
 Will Exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted to him;
 Will exercise reasonable and ordinary care and Diligence in the use of his skill and in the
application of his knowledge to his client's cause;
 Will take such step as will adequately Safeguard his client's interest.
In a case, an attorney was disbarred due to ‘palpable sloth' – for causing the dismissal of the
client’s appeals in two cases, the first one due to his improper way of filing the appeal and the
second one due to his non-filing of the appellant’s brief. Furthermore, he did not offer a
plausible explanation for not doing his level best in representing his client’s cause on appeal;
thus, making complainant suffer serious losses amounting to millions of pesos. As counsel, he
had the duty to present every remedy or defense authorized by law to protect his client. He
should undertake the task with dedication and care, and if he should do no less, then he is not
true to his lawyer’s oath (Panelco I v. Atty. Montemayor, A.C. No. 5739, 2007).
Duration and extent of lawyer's duty to safeguard client's interest
The attorney's duty to safeguard the client's interests commences from his retainer until his
effective release from the case or the final disposition of the whole subject matter of the litigation
Lawyer shall render service only when qualified to do so
When accepting professional employment, a lawyer must be knowledgeable, competent and

skillful to handle the case. Rule 18.01 of the Code provides that “a lawyer shall not undertake a
legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render.”
Preparation of pleadings
A lawyer’s pleading shows the extent of his study and preparation, articulates his ideas as an
officer of the court, mirrors his personality, and reflects his conduct and attitude towards the
court, the opposing party and his counsel. A lawyer must exercise utmost care in the
preparation of pleadings (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 222, 2009).
He must have thorough knowledge of the substantive and procedural laws applicable to the
facts of the case. He must thoroughly discuss the issues raised (GSIS v. CA, G.R. No. 128523,
1998) and refrain from using abrasive and offensive language (Yangson v. Salandanan, A.M.
No. 1347, 1975).
Pleadings filed in court are privileged and lawyers are exempt from liability for libelous
statements contained therein, provided they are material, relevant or pertinent to the cause or
subject of inquiry (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 224, 2009).
Interviewing of witnesses
A lawyer may interview a witness in advance of trial to guide him in the management of his
litigation and to ascertain certain facts in controversy. (Canon 39, CPE) A lawyer may also
interview a prospective witness for the opposing side in any civil or criminal action without the
consent of opposing counsel or party. (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 225, 2009).
An adverse party, though he may be used as a witness, is not a witness within the meaning of
the rule permitting a lawyer to interview the witness of the opposing party even without the
consent of the opposing counsel (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 226, 2009).
What to do in case of conflict in trial dates
A lawyer who has two or more cases in different courts set for trial on the same date without his
previous knowledge should lose no time in asking for postponement of the case or cases set
later, as he should not give undue preference for the work in one as against the other, except in
cases where there have been previous warnings by the Court against further postponement
In the event the court has served warning not to delay, in view of previous repeated
postponements of trial, he should submit motion for postponement at such time as is
practicable.
When his motion for postponement has been denied or when the case has been set for trial for
the last time, the lawyer must take precautionary measures by notifying the court and his client,
asking the client concerned to secure the services of another lawyer or requesting another
attorney to appear for him (Que v. CA, G.R. No. L-54169, 1980).
Adoption of system to insure receipt of mails
Service of notice by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt thereof by the addressee.
However, if he fails to claim his mail within 5 days from the date of the first notice of the
postmaster, service shall take effect at the expiration of such time (Rule 13, Sec. 8, ROC).
In this case, there must be a certification by the postmaster that the addressee received the first
notice. Failure or refusal of a lawyer to claim registered mails addressed to him shows omission
or negligence on his part (Pielago v. Generosa, G.R. No. L-47879, 1942).
Notice of change of address
A lawyer owes his client and the court the duty to make of record his correct address and to
inform the court in writing of his change of address (Ortalis v. CA, G.R. No. L-36088, 1973).
Without his address being recorded in the case, a lawyer will not be entitled to be served with
judicial notice (Magpayo v. CA, G.R. No. L-35966, 1974).
Insofar as the court is concerned, the last address on record is the place where all notices shall
be served until the court is officially informed to the contrary (Thermochem, Inc. v. Naval, G.R.
No. 131541, 2000).
The failure or negligence of counsel in not giving notice of his change of address is binding
upon his client, and both the client and his counsel must suffer the consequences (Villa
Transport Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76232, 1991).
Notice of death of client
A lawyer must inform the court, within 30 days, of the death of his client. If the claim survives
such death, the lawyer has the duty to also inform the court of the names of the legal
representatives of the deceased so that the latter can be substituted as parties (Rule 4, Sec. 16,
ROC).
Requiring clerk of court to do his duty
If the clerk of court is negligent in setting the case for pre-trial and hearing, it is the lawyer’s duty
to call the attention of the court to the fact or to file the necessary motion to set the case for pre-
trial or trial (Rule 20, Sec. 1, ROC).
Failure to do so may justify the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute (Montejo v. Urotia,
G.R. No. L-27187, 1971).
What is required when moving for time to file pleading or to postpone pleading?
A lawyer may file a motion for extension of time to file pleadings when pressure of work or other
unavoidable reasons require so.
However, he should not assume that the extension of time will be granted and must inquire with
the clerk of court as to its status. If the motion for extension of time to file a pleading, motion,
brief or memorandum has remained unacted by the court, the lawyer must file it within the time
asked for (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 231, 2009).
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.
While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine
interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of
his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law (Que v. Revilla,
Jr., A.C. No. 7054, 2009).
Diligence in handling case
Canon 18- A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
A lawyer must exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a
family (Phil. Bank of Commerce v. Aruego, CA-G.R. No. 28274, 1965). He is not bound to
exercise extraordinary diligence (Pajarillo v. WCC, G.R. No. L-42927, 1980). What amounts to
carelessness or negligence in the lawyer’s discharge of his duty depends upon the
circumstances of the case.
A lawyer who finds it impracticable to continue representing a client should inform the latter of
his predicament and ask that he be discharged from his professional responsibility or should
apply to the court that he be released therefrom.(Republic v. CFI of Lanao del Norte, G.R No. L-
33949, 1973).
A new counsel, who enters his appearance in midstream, has the duty not only to thoroughly
study the case, but also to inquire as to the status of the case (Arambulo v. CA, G.R. No.
10518, 1993).
It has been repeatedly enunciated that a client is bound by the action of his counsel in the
conduct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had
he proceeded differently. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. If such grounds were to
be admitted as reasons for reopening cases, there would never be an end to a suit so long as
new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that prior counsel had not been
sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned (Lagua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173390,
2012).
(g) Attorney’s fees
Fees as damages not recoverable
General Rule: Attorney’s fees in the concept of damages are not recoverable (Jimenez v.
Bucoy, G.R. No. L-10221, 1958; Castillo v. Samonte, G.R. No. L-13146, 1960). It is not the fact
of winning alone but the attendance of any of the special circumstances (Art. 2208, Civil Code
of the Philippines) and, in case of a public litigant, the existence of the right to private counsel
that justify the award of attorney’s fees as damages in favor of the prevailing party (Rizal Surety
& Ins. Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-23729, 1967).
Exceptions: The new Civil Code provides 11 additional exceptions to the rule and recognizes
the right of a winning litigant to recover attorney’s fees in any of those exceptions (Flores v.
Miranda, 105 Phil. 266, 1959).
Attorney’s fees in the concept of damages may be awarded in any of the following
circumstances: (MALA-SUN-RIC2ES)
1. In criminal cases of Malicious prosecution;
2. When there is Agreement;
3. When defendant’s action or omission compelled plaintiff to Litigate;
4. When exemplary damages are Awarded;
5. In actions for Support;
6. When the action is clearly Unfounded;
7. When defendant acted in gross Negligence and bad faith;
8. In cases of Recovery of wages;
9. In actions for Indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employee’s liability laws;
10. In a separate civil action arising from a Crime;
11. When at least double Costs are awarded;
12. When the court deems it just and Equitable;
13. When a Special law so authorizes.
Right of private counsel, precondition
He must have employed and, in the cases of a public litigant, must show his right to employ a
private counsel as well. A successful litigant who prosecuted his action without the assistance of
counsel is not entitled to the award of attorney’s fees (Andreas v. Green, G.R. No. 24322,
1925).
Award of attorney’s fees discretionary

The award of attorney’s fees is essentially discretionary with the trial court (Arabay, Inc. v.
Aquino, G.R. No. L-29033, 1970). The decision should state the reason why the award is made,
unless the text thereof plainly shows the case comes within one of the exceptions. A statement
by the trial court that it considered it “just and equitable” to require the payment of attorney’s
fees because the claim set up or the defense raised is untenable or insufficient to justify the
award.
Attorney’s fees are not awarded as a matter of course every time a party wins. The Supreme
Court does not put a premium on the right to litigate. The award of attorney’s fees is an
exception rather than the general rule; thus, there must be compelling legal reason to bring the
case within the exceptions provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code to justify the award
(Philippine National Construction Corporation v. APAC Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 190957,
2013).
Pleading and practice
In the absence of such allegation, neither the trial court nor the appellate court may grant
attorney’s fees (Enecilla v. Magsaysay, G.R. No. L-21568, 1966).
With the claim for attorney’s fees having been set up, the appellate court may grant such fees
even if the party so granted did not appeal from the lower court’s judgment denying the award
(Flores v. Mirando, G.R. No. 12163, 1959; Enecilla v. Magsaysay, G.R. No. L-21568, 1966).
The fact that the grant of attorney’s fees is discretionary does not dispense with the necessity of
proof even if the party against whom it is asserted has not denied the claim, except when what
is sought is in the nature of liquidated damages fixed in a valid written agreement (Santiago v.
Dimayuga, G.R. No. L-17883, 1961).
(i) Acceptance fees
Right to Attorney’s fees
A lawyer has the right to have and recover from his client a fair and reasonable compensation
for his services, except in cases where he has agreed to render service gratuitously or has been
appointed counsel de officio (Canon 20, Rule 2.04, CPR; Rule 138, Secs. 24 and 32, ROC).
Canon 20 - A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
The compensation of a lawyer should be a mere incident of the practice of law as the practice of
law is a profession and not a business (Canon 12, CPE).
Right to protection of counsel fee
A lawyer is as much entitled to judicial protection against injustice, imposition or fraud on the
part of his client as the client against abuse on the part of his counsel. The court must see to it
that a lawyer is paid his just fees (Albano v. Coloma, A.C. No. 528, 1967).
The proper time for a lawyer to deal with the issue of his attorney’s fees is at the
commencement of the lawyer-client relationship (Fajardo v. Bugaring, A.C. No. 5113, 2004).
Requisites for right to accrue (RS):
1. Accrual of the lawyer’s right to attorney’s fees requires the existence of an attorney-client
Relationship (Phil. Ass’n of Free Labor Union v. Binalbagan Sugar Co., G.R. No. L-23959,
1971)
2. the rendition by the lawyer of Services to the client (Fajardo vs. Court of Industrial
Relations,G.R. No. L-19453-4, 1967)
Written agreements
General Rule: A written agreement is not necessary to establish a client’s obligation to pay
attorney’s fees (Dee v. CA, G.R. No. 77439, 1989). The absence of an express undertaking on
the client’s part to pay attorney’s fees will not defeat the recovery if the lawyer honestly and in
good faith served and represented the interest of his client (De Guzman v. Visayan Rapid
Transit Co., G.R. No. 46396, 1989).
The client’s obligation to pay attorney’s fees arises from the innominate contract of facias ut
des (I do and you give) which is based on the principle that no one shall unjustly enrich himself
at the expense of another (Corpus v. CA, G.R. No. L-40424, 1980).
Exception: A contingency fee arrangement should always be in writing; otherwise, it is

unenforceable.
Who is liable for attorney’s fees
General Rule: only the client who engaged the services of counsel either personally of
through an authorized agent is liable for the attorney’s fees.
Exception: in the event a person who accepts the benefits of the legal representation impliedly
agrees to pay the lawyer’s services for may not unjustly enrich himself at the expense of the
lawyer.
Liability of persons benefited by counsel’s services
General Rule: A person who has no knowledge of, or objected to, the lawyer’s
representation may not be held liable for attorney’s fees even though such representation
redounded to his benefit (Orosco v. Heirs of Hernandez, 1 Phil. 77, 1901). The objection to the
lawyer’s appearance should, however, be raised before and not after beneficial services
shall have been rendered by the lawyer, otherwise, the party who benefited from the lawyer’s
representation may be required to pay counsel fees (Martinez v. Union Maquinistas, Fogoneros
y Motormen, G.R. No. L-19455-56, 1967).
If the legal representation redounded to the benefit of the party, the retention or acceptance of
the benefit cures the defect of lack of authority on the part of the agent to retain the lawyer.
Exception: When a private lawyer is employed to represent a government entity by an official

who has no authority in law to do so.
Liability of Assignee
The assignee may be held liable for counsel fees from out of the proceeds of a favorable
judgment. This gives the assignee the right to intervene in the matter of fixing the amount of
fees that may be a proper charge against the judgment rendered in the action (Otto Gmur, Inc.,
v. Revilla, G.R. No. L-34782, 1931).
Liability in Labor Cases
A lawyer who represents a union and its members and with whom he has a retainer for payment
of a fixed percentage or amounts recovered from the company is entitled for be paid his fees by
both union and non-union members who derive benefits from his services. Attorney’s fees in
labor cases may not be more that what the law provides and they may not be checked off from
any amount due to employees without their written consent (Gabriel v. Secretary of Labor, G.R.
No. 115949, 2000).
Liability in Derivative Suits
When the professional services of counsel who instituted the action upon request of a
stockholder are beneficial to the corporation, the counsel fees may be properly charged against
corporate funds. However, any stockholder may intervene and oppose the grant of such fees as
a charge against the funds of the corporation (Lichauco v CA, G.R. No. L-23842, 1975).
Liability in Receivership proceedings
The attorney’s fees for a defendant in a receivership proceeding are personal obligations of the
defendant and may not be paid out of the funds in the hands of the receiver, unless the services
rendered by the lawyer have redounded to the benefit of the receivership or of the plaintiff who
asked for the appointment of the receiver.(Phil. National Bank v. Pardo y Robles Hermanos,
G.R. No. L-46365, 1939).
Liability in Trusteeship or Guardianship Proceedings
A trustee may be indemnified out of the trust estate for his expenses in rendering and proving
his accounts and for the counsel fees in connection therewith. However, the court may
determine whether or not a trustee may be allowed expenses for attorney’s fee and permitted to
charge the same against the trust estate (Araneta v. Perez, G.R. No. L-20787-8, 1965).
In guardianship proceedings, the property of the ward may lawfully answer for counsel fees of
the lawyer employed by the guardian. However, no assets of the ward may be spent for
attorney’s fees without the proper approval of the guardianship court (Fernandez v. Bello, G.R.
No. L-14277, 1960)
Liability in Estate proceedings
The liability for payment rests on the executor or the administrator who may, if the services are
beneficial to the estate, either seek reimbursement from the estate if he has already paid them
or include them in his account with due notice to all parties interested (Oceña v. Marquez, G.R.
No. L-27396, 1974.) The estate will answer for the fees of the lawyer whose services are
beneficial to the estate, and if the assets have already been distributed, the distributor or heirs
will have to contribute their share to the counsel fees as the obligations of the estate follow the
assets wherever they are, except in the hands of a purchaser in good faith (David v. Sison,
G.R. No. L-1399, 1946).
Who are entitled to attorney’s fees or a share therein?
The lawyer who has been engaged by a client is the one entitled to have and recover no more
than a reasonable compensation for his services (Rule 138, Sec. 24, ROC).
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with the consent of the client, be entitled
to a division of fees in proportion to work performed and responsibility assumed.
Non-lawyer not entitled to fees
A non-lawyer cannot recover attorney’s fees even if there is a law authorizing him to represent a
litigant in court (Phil. Ass’n. of Free Labor Union v. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., G.R. No. L-
23959, 1971.) An attorney-client relationship is a precondition to the recovery of attorney’s fees.
Restrictions on some lawyers to charge fees
A lawyer who is absolutely disqualified from engaging in the private practice of law by reason of
his government position may neither practice law nor, should he do so illegally, charge
attorney’s fees for such services. The prohibition does not apply to the collection of attorney’s
fees for services already performed before the lawyer qualified for the public office even though
payment for such service is made after the lawyer has qualified for the public office(Omico
Mining & Industrial Corp. v. Vallejos, G.R. No. L-38974, 1975).
An executor or administrator is prohibited from charging the estate under his administration of
his professional fees for services rendered by him as a lawyer (Rule 85, Sec. 7, ROC).
Right of counsel de officio to fees
In the absence of a law allowing compensation, the lawyer designated as counsel de officio
cannot charge the government nor the indigent litigant for his professional services. The court
may, in its discretion, order an attorney employed as counsel de officio to be compensated in
such sum as the court may reasonably fix, which shall not be less than P30.00 in any case nor
more than P50.00 in light felonies; P100.00 in less grave felonies; P200.00 in grave felonies
other than capital offenses; and P500.00 in capital offenses (Rule 138, Sec. 32, ROC). The
compensation for counsel de officio is not, however, intended as a source of regular income
(People v. Daeng, G.R. No. L-34091, 1973).
Attorney’s conduct affecting right to fees
A lawyer’s right to recover reasonable compensation may be affected by misconduct on his

part, such as carelessness or negligence in the discharge of his duties (Wolfson v. Anderson,
G.R. No. L-24510, 1926), misrepresentation, or abuse of client’s confidence or unfaithfulness in
representing his client’s cause (Medina v. Bautista, A.C. No. 190, 1964).
Adverse result of the litigation does not in itself deprive a lawyer of the right to claim a
reasonable compensation for his services, unless such result is (MC):
1. Due to the lawyer’s Misconduct
2. The fee stipulated is Contingent upon the favorable outcome of the action
Withdrawal of counsel from the case
A lawyer’s unceremonious withdrawal from or abandonment of the action, which prejudices the
client constitutes a breach of his implied undertaking to prosecute or defend the client’s cause
until the termination of the litigation. His right to compensation for services is negated.
The withdrawal of counsel who has so far done his work faithfully in accordance with the
prescribed procedure does not affect his right to fees for services rendered in the case. If the
withdrawal is with the client’s written conformity, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
it is presumed that he and his client have mutually agreed to terminate his services and to
compensate him for such services up to the date their relationship is terminated. The lawyer
should refund to his client such part of the retainer as has not been clearly earned. If the
withdrawal is without the client’s written consent but for a justifiable cause made after due
notice to the client, the lawyer may recover the reasonable worth of his services up to the date
of his withdrawal, unless the agreed fee is contingent and the contingency has not arisen
(Palanca v. Pecson, G.R. No. L-6334, 1954).
Representation of adverse interests
In the absence of the client’s consent to the dual representation made after full disclosure of the
facts (Canons 6 and 37, Canons of Professional Ethics), a lawyer may not receive
compensation from both parties to a controversy (Medina v. Bautista, A.C. No. 190, 1964).
The lawyer’s acceptance of employment from a new client against a former client in a matter,
which is related to the former controversy, precludes recovery of fees from the former client
only if the latter objected to the representation. (Deupree v. Garnett, 1954 OK 110 (Okla.
1954); NOTE: There is no equivalent Philippine jurisprudence on the matter). The new client
may not defeat the lawyer’s right to fees in the absence of concealment and prejudice by
reason of the lawyer’s previous relationship with the adverse party.
Lawyer’s right unaffected by client’s conduct
A client cannot, in the absence of the lawyer’s fault, consent or waiver, deprive the lawyer of his
just fees already earned.
Attorney’s discharge by client
The discharge of a lawyer by his client without a valid cause before the conclusion of the
litigation does not negate the lawyer’s right to recover payment for his services. If the contract
between a client and his lawyer is in writing and the fee stipulated is absolute and reasonable, a
lawyer who is discharged without justifiable cause will be entitled to the full amount thereof.
(Palanca v. Pecson, G.R. No. L-6334, 1954).
The lawyer should question his discharge to entitle him to recover under the contract, otherwise
he will be allowed recovery only on a quantum meruit basis (Flores v. Phil. National Bank, G.R.
No. L-18537, 1966).
If there’s no express written agreement as to fees, the lawyer may only be entitled to recover
the reasonable value of his services up to the date of his dismissal.
Client dismissal of actions
A client may dismiss his action even without or against the consent of his counsel. If the
dismissal of the action is in good faith, and is based on an honest belief that the client has no
valid cause, the lawyer may recover only the reasonable worth of his services, except when the
fee is contingent in which case, there will be no recovery.
If the dismissal is in bad faith and is intended to defraud the lawyer of his compensation, the
lawyer will be entitled to the full amount stipulated in a valid written contract, or in the absence
of such contract, a reasonable value of his services based on quantum meruit.
Client’s compromise of action
A client cannot, by entering into a compromise agreement, deprive his lawyer of his fees in the
absence of waiver on the part of the lawyer (National Power Corporation v. NPC Employees
and Workers’ Union, G.R. No. L-26169, 1979).
If the compromise is with the consent of the lawyer, he will be entitled to only a reasonable value
of his services fixed on the basis of quantum meruit (Lutero v. Esler, G.R. No. L-29268, 1928).
If there is bad faith, the lawyer will be entitled to recover the full amount of fees stipulated in a
valid written contract or, in the absence of such contract, the reasonable worth of his services
(Recto v. Harden, G.R. No. L-6897, 1956).
Contract for Attorney’s Fees
Generally
A contract of professional services may either be oral or in writing. The fee stipulated may be
absolute or contingent; it may be a fixed percentage of the amount recovered in the action. The
contract may call for a down payment of a fee per appearance, per piece of work, or on an
hourly basis. It may also be a combination of the agreements.
Kinds of retainer
General Retainer or Retaining Fee
The fee paid to a lawyer to secure his future services as general counsel for any ordinary
legal problems that may arise in the routine business of the client and referred to him for legal
action. The fee paid to remunerate him for being deprived, by being retained by one party, of the
opportunity of rendering service to the other party.
Special Retainer
A fee for a specific case handled or special service rendered by the lawyer for a client. When
for every case there is a separate and independent contract for attorney’s fees, each fee is
considered a special retainer (Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 120592, 1997).
Validity of contract
The general rules governing the validity of an ordinary contract apply to an agreement for
professional services. It becomes the law between the parties provided the stipulations are not
contrary to law, good morals, good customs, and public policy or public order. (Reparations
Commission v, Visayan Packing Corp., G.R. No. L-30712, February 6, 1991;)
As with any other contract, a retainer whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, public
policy, morals and good customs is null and void (Civil Code, art. 1409; Omnico Mining &
Industrial Corp. v. Vallejos, G.R. No. L-38974, 1955).
Effect of nullity of contract
Q: Can a lawyer recover his fees if the professional contract is null and void?
A: It depends.
(1) If the nullity results from the illegality of the object sought to be achieved by the performance
of the professional services, no. It precludes a lawyer from recovering his fees for such services
(Baca v. Padilla, 1920).
(2) If the nullity of the contract is due to want of authority on the part of one of the contracting
parties or to some irregularity in its formal execution or to the reasonable amount of fees fixed
therein, yes. The lawyer will be entitled to recover what is justly due to him for his services on
the basis of quantum meruit.
The services, in that case, are legitimate, and while the contract will not be enforced because of
its formal defects, the rule against unjust enrichment will entitle the lawyer to recover the
reasonable worth of his services (Magsumbol v. Pagbilao, G.R. No.L-6915 1957).
Effect of unconscionability of amount
Rule 138, Sec. 24 of the Rules of Court provides that an “attorney shall be entitled to have and
recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services” and that
a “written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefore unless found by the
court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.”
The court may properly modify or disregard a contract of professional services whenever the fee
therein fixed is unconscionable or unreasonable. (Mambulao Lumber Co. v. Phil. National Bank,
G.R. No. L-22973, 1968).
When the amount of fees stipulated in the professional contract is unconscionable, the contract
is rendered invalid. The fact that the client knowingly entered into such a contract does not
estop him from questioning the validity of the contract, because estoppel does not validate a
contract that is prohibited by law or is against public policy (Gorospe v. Gochangco, G.R. No. L-
12735, 1959).
Public policy demands that the court disregard the contract and protect the client from
unreasonable exaction. (Felices v. Madrilejos, G.R. No. 27124, 1927; Jayme v. Bualan, G.R.
No. 37386, 1933.) However, the unconscionability of the amount will not preclude recovery; it
will only justify the court to fix the reasonable worth of the lawyer’s services based on quantum
meruit.
(ii) Contingency Fee Arrangements

An absolute fee arrangement entitles a lawyer to get paid for his efforts regardless of the
outcome of the litigations; he does not assume any risk or uncertainty that his compensation will
not be paid.
On the other hand, a lawyer whose fee is contingent assumes the risk of not getting paid for his
services; he may not even get reimbursement for advances of litigation expenses if the client is
poor; a contract for a contingent fee is a contract between a lawyer and his client in which the
lawyer’s professional fee, usually a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the
action, is made to depend upon the success of the litigation.
In such contract, the lawyer gets paid for his services only if he wins the case for the client. If
the client prevents the successful prosecution of the case or acts in bad faith, the lawyer will be
entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis or the full amount stipulated in the valid written
agreement, respectively (Aro v. Naňawa, G.R. No. L-24163, 1969).
This type of contract is under the close supervision and scrutiny of the court to protect clients
from unjust charges. The court will reduce the amount of an unconscionable contingent fee to a
reasonable sum, even where the client manifests conformity thereto, because a lawyer subjects
his professional fees to judicial control when he takes his oath. (Sesbreno v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 89252, 1993).
In the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, a lawyer cannot charge his client a contingent
fee or a percentage of the amount recovered as his fees. Contingent fees depend upon an
express contract, without which the lawyer can only recover on the basis of quantum
meruit. (Corpus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-40424, 1980).
Validity of contingent fee – must be in writing
A contingent fee must be in writing, and if not, it is unenforceable. In this jurisdiction, a

contingent fee is not prohibited by law and is impliedly sanctioned. It is generally valid and
binding, unless it is obtained by fraud, imposition or suppression of facts, or the fee is so clearly
excessive as to amount to an extortion (Tanhueco v. De Dumo, A.M. No. 1437,1989).
The fraud or suppression of facts may be on the part of the lawyer, who takes advantage of his
client’s ignorance (Jayme v. Bualan, G.R. No. 37386, September 19, 1933), or on the part of the
client, who avoids paying his lawyer a legitimate fee by undervaluing the amount of his interests
in litigation (Francisco v. Matias, G.R. No. 16349, 1964).
Even if the compensation of a counsel is dependent only upon winning a case he himself
secured for his client, the subsequent withdrawal of the case on the client’s own volition should
never completely deprive counsel of any legitimate compensation for his professional services
(Gubat v. National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 167415, 2010).
A lawyer may properly charge a higher fee for his services when the fee is contingent than when
it is absolute (Francisco v. Matias, G.R. No. L-16349, 1964).
Effect of agreement to pay litigation expenses
A Champertous Agreement is an agreement by a lawyer to conduct the litigation on his own

account, to pay the expenses thereof or to save his client therefrom and to receive, as his fee, a
portion of the proceeds of a judgment – it is obnoxious to the law.
Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics forbids a lawyer from agreeing to pay or bear
any of the expenses of litigation. This is to prevent a lawyer from acquiring an interest in the
litigation and to avoid conflict of interest between him and his client.
To permit these arrangements is to enable the lawyer to "acquire additional stake in the
outcome of the action which might lead him to consider his own recovery rather than that of his
client or to accept a settlement which might take care of his interest in the verdict to the sacrifice
of that of his client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to his client's cause."
Thus, an agreement between a lawyer and his client that does not provide for reimbursement of
litigation expenses paid by him is against public policy, especially if the lawyer has agreed to
carry on the action at his expense in consideration of some bargain to have a part of the thing in
dispute. Such agreement violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client
and renders the lawyer liable for administrative sanction (Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M. No. 1625,
1990).
He may, however, in good faith, advance the expenses as a matter of convenience but subject
to reimbursement.
Construction of professional contract
General Rule: Adopt such construction as would be more favorable to the client even if it would
work prejudice to the lawyer (De los Santos v. Palanca, G.R. No. 17815, 1963).
If the ambiguity in the contract was caused by the lawyer, the obscurity will be resolved against
him (Martinez v. Banogan, G.R. No L-15698, 1963.).
Thus, a lawyer who prepares a contract of professional services is presumed to have sized up
the entire situation before entering into the agreement (Martinez v. Banogan, G.R. No L-15698,
1963).
Unless there is evidence that a lawyer, in entering into contract for a fixed fee, has agreed to
handle other cases for the client without any additional compensation, it would neither be fair
nor just to hold that he agreed to conduct such other cases gratuitously (De los Santos v.
Palanca, G.R. No. 17815, 1963)
An agreement for a fixed fee until the termination of the action means until the final resolution of
the litigation including appeal, and the agreed fee covers services on appeal (Dias v. Garduho,
G.R. No. L-25523, 1926.)
Measure of Compensation
Quantum Meruit means “as much as the lawyer deserves” or “such amount which his
services merit.” It is used as basis for determining an attorney’s professional fees in the
absence of an express agreement. The recovery of attorney’s fees on the basis of quantum
meruit is a device that prevents an unscrupulous client from running away with the fruits of the
legal services of counsel without paying for it and also avoids unjust enrichment on the part of
the attorney himself (Vinson B. Pineda v. Atty. Clodualdo de Jesus, G.R. No. 155244, 2006). An
attorney must show that he is entitled to reasonable compensation for the effort in pursuing the
client’s cause, taking into account certain factors in fixing the amount of legal fees (The Law
Firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta & Gastardo vs. CA, G.R. No. 185544, 2015).
Recovery of attorney’s fees in the basis of quantum meruit is authorized:
 When there is no express Contract for payment of attorney’s fees;

 When although there is a formal contact for attorney’s fee, the fees stipulated are found
Unconscionable or unreasonable by the court;
 When the lawyer and the client disregard the contract for attorney’s fees (Rilloraza, Africa,
De Ocampo and Africa v. Eastern Telecommunications Phil. Inc., G.R. No. 104600, 1999);
 When the client dismissed his counsel before the termination of the case;
 When the counsel withdrew therefrom for valid reasons, as when the lawyer, for justifiable
cause, was not able to finish the case to its conclusion; or,
 When the contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely formal defects of execution.
In the case of The Law Firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta & Gastardo: the Board of
Directors, acting on behalf of Clark Development Corporation, contracted the services of [the
law firm], without the necessary prior approvals required by the rules and regulations for the
hiring of private counsel. Their actions were clearly unauthorized. It was, thus, erroneous for
Government Corporate Counsel Devanadera to bind Clark Development Corporation, a
government entity, to pay petitioner on a quantum meruit basis for legal services, which were
neither approved nor authorized by the government (The Law Firm of Laguesma Magsalin
Consulta & Gastardo vs. CA, G.R. No. 185544, 2015).
Factors taken into account

Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:
a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
c) The importance of the subject matter;
d) The skill demanded;
e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered
case;
f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter
to which he belongs;
g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client form
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
The foregoing factors, not one of which is controlling, are mere guides in ascertaining the real
value of the lawyer’s services. The determination of the attorney’s fees involves questions of
fact. This requires that there be evidence to prove the amount of fees, taking into account the
facts determinative thereof (Rillaroza, Africa, De Ocampo and Africa v. Eastern
Telecommunications Phil., Inc., G.R. No. 104600, 1999).
Amount fixed in a valid contract
Generally speaking, the amount of attorney’s fees due is that stipulated in the written retainer
agreement which is conclusive as to the amount of the lawyer’s compensation (Compania
Matima, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 128452, 1999).
Once the lawyer has performed the task assigned to him in a valid written agreement, his
compensation shall be determined on the basis of what he and his client have agreed and not
on quantum meruit basis (Francisco v. Matias, G.R. No. L-16349, 1964).
Unless both the attorney and the client expressly or impliedly set aside the contract and submit
the question of reasonableness of the amount for the court to resolve on a quantum meruit
basis, neither may disregard the amount fixed in the contract (Martinez v. Banogan, G.R. No. L-
15698, 1963.)
This applies whether the fee contracted for is absolute or contingent upon the outcome of the
litigation (Quitoriano v. Centeno, G.R. No. L-40309, 1939.)
Nature of services
The value of the lawyer’s services is in large measure determined by the nature, quality and
quantity of such services. (Zulueta v. Pan American World Airways, G.R. No. L-28589, 1973.)
The lawyer’s service should not be fragmented and each fragment separately valued. Rather
the importance and value of his services should be measured and considered as a whole.
Skill and standing of the attorney
The skill, experience and standing of a lawyer bear a direct proportion to the amount of
attorney’s fees to which he may be entitled for his services (Zulueta v. Pan American World
Airways, G.R. No. L-28589, 1973).
The lawyer’s competence and ability must be judged by the character and quality of his work
and services not only in the field of law but in other fields of public and private endeavors as well
(Ingersoll v. Malabon Sugar Co., G.R. No. 27770,1927). The skill and standing of the lawyer
must be duly proved.
Value of the interest involved
Generally speaking, the bigger the size or value of the interest or property involved in litigation
the higher the attorney’s fee is. This is because the higher the stakes, the more the case is hotly
litigated and the greater the efforts the lawyer exerts (Francisco v. Matias, G.R. No. L-16349,
1964).
The value of the interest in litigation as a measure of the lawyer’s compensation depends, in the
last analysis, upon the extent of the special and additional services and efforts demanded of the
case. Even if the interest involved is of considerable value but calls for no extra efforts, there will
be no justification for awarding a high compensation for the lawyer’s services (Mambulao
Lumber Co. v. PNB, G.R. No. L-22973, 1968).
Loss of opportunity for other employment
The loss of opportunity for other employment on the part of a lawyer who accepts a retainer is
taken into consideration in fixing the amount of the lawyer’s fee (Canon 12, CPE).
While such work may not call for extraordinary skill, it is the loss of opportunity for other gainful
services for his attendance to those small details that warrant payment of higher compensation
than may ordinarily be granted. (Bernardino Guerrero & Associates v. Tan, G.R. Nos. L-20824
& L-22218, 1965).
Difficulty of issues involved
In fixing the lawyer’s fees, the court takes into account the novelty or difficulty of the questions
involved in the action as well as the demands on his part on those questions. (Sison v. Suntay,
G.R. No. L-10000, 1957).
“Test case”
Where several actions or possible disputes, as in cases concerning insurance, tax, levy or labor
involve an identical question and one case is litigated as a test case, the value in controversy in
all the actions should bear its appropriate proportion to the amount due as fees to the lawyer
who prosecuted the test case (Martinez v. Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros y Motormen, G.R.
No. L-19455-56, 1967).
Results secured
The importance to a client of his lawyer’s services depends upon the successful outcome of the
litigation. What the lawyer secures for his client represents a real benefit to the client. In fixing
what a lawyer is reasonably entitled as his compensation, the result secured by the lawyer is
given much weight (Francisco v. Matias, G.R. No. L-16349, 1964).
A client whose lawyer fails to secure what his client desires may hesitate to comply with the
contract for professional services even if the fee agreed upon is absolute. The fact that a lawyer,
in spite of his efforts, failed to secure for his client what he desires does not, however, deprive
him of the right to recover compensation for his services except when the fee agreed upon is
contingent.
Capacity of clients to pay
The financial capability of a client to pay may also be considered in determining the amount of
fees not to enhance the same above what is reasonable but to ascertain whether or not the
client is able to pay a fair and just compensation for the services rendered.
Statutory limitation as to fees
The legislature, in the exercise of its police power, may by law prescribe the limit of attorney’s
fees that a lawyer may charge his client (See Republic Acts 65, Sec. 15; Rule 141, ROC).
Such law should be interpreted strictly and may not be extended beyond what it expressly
comprehends (Phil. National Bank v. De Borromeo, G.R. No. L-9979, 1958).
A lawyer who collects more than what the law permits may be criminally held liable (Narido v.
Linsangan, A.M. No. 944,1974).
Fees in cases of referral
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with the consent of the client, be entitled
to a division of fees in proportion to work performed and responsibility assumed.
It is improper for a lawyer to receive compensation for merely recommending another lawyer to
his client for if such practice is permitted, it would tend to germinate the evils of commercialism
and to destroy the proper appreciation of professional responsibility (A.B.A. Op. 97, 1933).
It is only when, in addition to the referral, he performs legal services or assumes responsibility in
the case that he will be entitled to a fee (Comments of IBP Committee that drafted the Code, p.
111).
A lawyer shall not receive fee from another without client’s consent.
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.
A lawyer should receive compensation for his services in a case only from his client and not
from any other person. This is to prevent a situation in which the receipt by him of a rebate or
commission from another in connection with the client’s cause may interfere with the full
discharge of his duty to his client (A.B.A. Op. 78, August 27, 1932).
A corollary of the foregoing rule is the principle that whatever a lawyer receives from the
opposite party in the service of his client belongs to his client.
(iii) Attorney’s liens
In General
Lawyers are required at all times to exert utmost zeal and untainted fidelity in upholding his
client’s cause and subject to appropriate disciplinary action should he fail to live up to such
exacting standard, the lawyer in return is given through his liens – retaining and charging – an
effective hold on his client to assure payment of his fees (Ampil v. Agrava, G.R. No. L-27394,
1970).
The law creates in favor of the lawyer a lien not only upon the funds, documents and papers of
his client which have lawfully come into his possession until what is due him has been paid, but
also a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money and executions issued in pursuance of
such judgments rendered in the case wherein his services have been retained by the client
(Rule 138, Secs. 26 and 37, ROC; Rule 16.03, CPR).
Retaining Lien
A retaining lien is a general lien for the balance of the account due to the attorney from his client
for services rendered in all matters which he may have handled for the client, regardless of their
outcome.
Nature and essence – passive right to retain
A retaining lien is a passive right and cannot be actively enforced. It amounts to a mere right to
retain the funds, documents and papers as against the client until the attorney is fully paid his
fees.
The inconvenience that may be caused to the client as a result of the retaining lien exercised by
the attorney is the reason and essence of the lien (Rustia v. Abeto, G.R. No. L-47914, 1941).
Such inconvenience or disadvantage may induce the client to pay the lawyer his fees and
disbursements (Ampil v. Agrava, G.R. No. L-27394, 1970).
Property to which lien attaches
The general, possessory or retaining lien of an attorney attaches to all property, papers, books,
documents or securities of the client that lawfully come to the lawyer professionally or in the
course of his professional employment, not necessarily in connection with a particular case but
any case or matter handled for the client. It also attaches to the client’s money which comes
into his possession by way of a writ of execution ordered by the court. It extends to funds
collected by the attorney for his client in the course of his employment, whether or not upon a
judgment or award (De Jesus-Alano v. Tan, G.R. No. L-9473, 1959).
However, the retaining lien does not attach to funds, documents and papers which come into
the lawyer’s possession in some other capacity, such as an agent of the client’s spouse
(Sarmiento v. Montagne, G.R. No. 1110, 1904), or as a mortgagee or trustee. It also does not
attach to documents introduced as exhibits in court, they being subject to the court’s custody
over which it exercises control (Villanueva v. Querubin, G.R. No. L-26137, 1968).
An attorney may lawfully enforce his retaining lien only against the funds, documents and
papers of his client and not against those belonging to third persons or to the client’s adversary
(Ampil v. Agrava, G.R. No. L-27394, 1970).
When lien attaches
The retaining lien attaches from the moment the attorney lawfully obtains and retains
possession of the funds, documents and papers of the client until the client pays him his fees
and disbursements (Rustia v. Abeto, G.R. No. L-47914, 1941). The lawyer’s position is similar to
that of a creditor who holds an attachment lien over the property and the client-debtor must
discharge the lien before he can dispose of the property to third persons (Ampil v. Agrava, G.R.
No. L-27394, 1970).
Bond for return of documents
The attorney’s retaining lien, once it has attached, is incontestable and the court may not
compel him to surrender them without prior proof that his fees and disbursements have been
duly satisfied. (Matute v. Matute, G.R. No. L-27832, May 28, 1970); However, the court may
require the surrender thereof upon the client’s posting of an adequate bond or security to
guarantee payment of the lawyer’s fees (Rustia v. Abeto, G.R. No. L-47914, 1941).
Extinguishment of retaining lien
It expires when possession lawfully ends, as when the lawyer voluntarily parts with the funds,
documents and papers of his client or offers them in evidence in court (Villanueva v. Querubin,
G.R. No. L-26137, 1968).
If the papers or documents have been improperly or illegally taken from the custody of the
attorney, his lien is not lost thereby, unless by his act or omission he waives his right thereto.
Mandamus will lie to restore possession of the documents unlawfully taken from him (Rustia v.
Abeto, G.R. No. L-47914, 1941).
Satisfaction of lien
Since the attorney’s general or retaining lien is only a mere passive right to enforce collection of
his fees and disbursements, he still has to file the necessary action to recover what is due him
from his client. If what the lawyer retains in the exercise of his lien refers to funds or money of
the client that lawfully comes into his possession and the client does not dispute his claim for
attorney’s fees and the amount thereof, he may lawfully apply the client’s funds in satisfaction
of his claim for attorney’s fees and disbursements (De Jesus-Alano v. Tan, G.R. No.L-9473,
1959).
All that is required is that the lawyer provide his client with an accounting, showing the
amount deducted in payment of his claim and remitting the balance, if any, to the client (Cf.
Teodoro v. Javier, 63 Phil. 1050 (1936).
However, if he makes the application without his right to or the amount of his fees first
determined by the court or without the client’s consent, he may be liable for misappropriation of
the client’s funds (In re Booram, 39 Phil. 247 (1918).
CHARGING LIEN
Definition
A charging lien is an equitable right to have the fees and lawful disbursements due a lawyer for
his services in a suit secured to him out of the judgment for the payment of money and
executions issued in pursuance thereof in the particular suit (Bacolod Murcia Milling Co. v.
Henares, G.R. No. L-13505, 1960).
It is based on the natural equity that a client should not be allowed to appropriate the whole of a
judgment in his favor without paying the services of his counsel in obtaining or helping obtain
such judgment (Bacolod Murcia Milling Co. v. Henares, G.R. No. L-13505, 1960).
It is a special lien. It is a charge upon the thing which it is protecting in equity. It does not
depend upon the judgment recovered but has been created to save the attorney’s right where
he has been unable to get possession (Rustia v. Abeto, G.R. No. L-47914,1941).
It is a device invented by law for the protection of attorneys against the knaveries of their clients
by disabling them from receiving the fruits of recoveries without paying for the valuable services
by which the recoveries were obtained (Bacolod Murcia Milling Co. v. Hernaes, G.R. No. L-
13505, 1960).
This presupposes that the attorney has received a favorable money judgment for his client. It is
limited to only money judgments and not to any other kinds of judgment, such as judgment for
annulment of contract or for delivery of real property (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 86100-03, 1990). Where the services of counsel were terminated and the
case was thereafter amicably settled, it cannot be said that he secured a favorable judgment for
his client and was therefore entitled to a charging lien.
It is enough that the lawyer had rendered some service at any stage of the proceeding, not
necessarily the one who concluded the action, to be entitled to a charging lien recorded in the
case to secure payment of a reasonable value of his services.
Requirements for an enforceable attorney's lien (SN):

1. Statement of claim made on record of case while the court has jurisdiction over the same
and before full satisfaction of the judgment and,
2. written Notice of his claim delivered to client and adverse party (Navarez v. Atty. Abrogar III,
G.R. No. 191641, 2015).
Mere filing of statement does not legally determine the amount of the claim. Both the attorney
and the client must have the right to be heard and to present evidence in support of their claims.
A full trial is necessary before a lien is registered (Navarez v. Atty. Abrogar III, G.R. No. 191641,
2015).
Further, registration and enforcement of a lien are different. Registration merely determines birth
of a lien. At this point, the lawyer does not need to pay docket fees. However, a motion for
enforcement is in the nature of an action to collect fees against the clients. As in every action for
a sum of money, the attorney-movant must first pay prescribed docket fees before the court can
acquire jurisdiction to order enforcement of the lien (Navarez v. Atty. Abrogar III, G.R. No.
191641, 2015).
An attorney's lien can only be enforced after a final money judgment has been rendered in favor
of the client. The lien only attaches on the money judgment due to the client and is contingent
on final determination of the main case. Until the judgment is final and executory, enforcement
of an attorney's lien is premature (Navarez v. Atty. Abrogar III, G.R. No. 191641, 2015).
Record and notice of lien
The attorney’s charging lien takes effect from and after the time the attorney has caused a
notice of his lien to be duly entered in the record of the case (Macondray & Co. v. Jose, G.R.
No. L-44671, 1938). The record, to be valid, should be effected while the court has jurisdiction
over the case and before the full satisfaction of the judgment. (G.A. Machineries, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.L-42768, 1977). Compliance of the requirement of notice is necessary to
make the lien effective (Caina v. Victoriano,, G.R. No. L-12905, 1959) and to confer jurisdiction
upon the court to determine the lien (Bacolod Murcia Milling Co. v. Hernaes, G.R. No. L-13505,
1960).
A copy of the attorney’s claim is also served upon the adverse party or judgment debtor before
the latter has satisfied the judgment in order that that charging lien, once duly recorded, will bind
him (Calalang v. De Borja, G.R. No. L-27771, 1975).
In the absence of such notice of the lien, the judgment debtor is not bound to preserve the
attorney’s fees of the lawyer for the judgment creditor nor is he required to take cognizance of
the fact that the lawyer will claim the benefit of the lien (Menzi & Co. v. Bastida, G.R. No. L-
42278, 1936).
In the absence of valid written contract fixing the amount of professional fees, the filing of a
charging lien for a reasonable value of legal services does not by itself legally ascertain and
determine the amount of the lien, especially when the amount is contested. In all events, the
exact amount of attorney’s fees should be determined before the lien can be enforced (Bacolod
Murcia Milling Co. v. Hernaes, G.R. No. L-13505, 1960).
To what charging lien attaches
Once duly recorded, the charging lien attaches to the judgment for the payment of money and
the executions issued in pursuance of such judgment. The charging lien does not attach to
property or land in litigation. (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
86100-03, January 23, 1990) The lien is only restricted to amounts awarded to the client by final
judgment and does not comprise sums of money which, according to the same judgment, must
be applied to satisfy a legitimate debt of the client (De la Peňa v. Hidalgo, G.R. No. L-6626,
1911).
Effects of charging lien
The lien gives the lawyer the right to collect, in payment of his professional fees and
disbursements, a certain amount from out of the judgment or award rendered in favor of his
client. (Morente v. Formalino, G.R. No. L-47262, 1940.) The client who receives the proceeds of
the judgment hold such proceeds in trust for the lawyer who is, to the extent of his lien, regarded
as an equitable assignee thereof. A lawyer’s duly recorded charging lien enjoys preference of
credit over that of a creditor who subsequently recorded it (Bucoy v. Mcfie, G.R. No. 43850,
1939).
Likewise, the lien survives the death of the client and need not therefore be enforced in the
proceeding for the settlement of the client’s estate (Harden v. Harden, G.R. No. L-22174, 1967).
In a case wherein a client decided to accept the settlement offer and to withdraw the case he
filed with the help of his attorney, and whereby his attorney opposed such withdrawal by filing a
Motion for Recording of Attorney’s Charging Lien, the Supreme Court held that it was
proper for the attorney to intervene in a case to protect his rights concerning the payment of his
compensation. According to the discretion of the court, the attorney shall have a lien upon all
judgments for the payment of money rendered in a case in which his services have been
retained by the client. An attorney is entitled to be paid reasonable compensation for his
services (Baltazar v. Bañez, A.C. No. 9091, 2013).
Extinguishment
A charging lien is extinguished when the client loses the action as the lien may only be enforced
against a judgment awarded in favor of the client, the proceeds thereof or the execution thereon
(Morente v. Firmalino. G.R. No. L-47262, 1940).
Assignment of charging lien
The generally accepted rule is that an attorney’s charging lien may be assigned or transferred
without the preference thereof being extinguished except when the assignment carries with it a
breach of the attorney’s duty to preserve his client’s confidence inviolate. The assignee steps
into the shoes of the lawyer and enjoys all the rights which the latter has in the charging lien
(Menzi & Co. v. Bastida, G.R. No. L-42278, 1936).
Satisfaction of judgment
The satisfaction of a judgment in favor of the client does not by itself extinguish the attorney ’s
charging lien. The satisfaction of judgment may extinguish the lien only when there has been a
waiver of the right thereto either by the attorney’s active conduct of by his passive omission.
Enforcement
The charging lien may be enforced in the court, upon proper motion filed before judgment in
favor of the client is by execution (Dahlke v. Viňa, G.R. No. L-28252, 1928). It may be enforced
against the client, who holds it in trust for the lawyer (Calalang v. De Borja, G.R. No. L-27771,
1975), or against the judgment debtor, who disregards the charging lien properly served on him.
(iv) Fees and Controversies with Clients (Quantum Meruit)
A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his fees
Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation
and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice of fraud.
Suits to collect fees should be avoided, and only where the circumstances imperatively require
should a lawyer resort to lawsuit to enforce payment of his fees (Comments of the IBP
Committee that drafted the Code, P. 112).
Lawsuits with clients should be resorted to only to prevent injustice, imposition, or fraud. When
the client has already paid more than one half of the lawyer’s fees, there is no injustice,
imposition, or fraud to warrant resort to judicial action for collection of the remainder. Although
every lawyer must be paid what is due to him, he must never resort to judicial action to recover
his fees, in a manner that detracts from the dignity of the profession (Cueto v. Jimenez, A.C. No.
5798, 2005).
Generally
There is an irreconcilable conflict of interests between a client and his lawyer as to the matter of
fees (Diaz v. Kapunan, 45 Phil. 848, 1932). That conflict should not interfere with the discharge
by the lawyer of his duty of undivided fidelity to his client’s cause (Politrade Corp. v. Blanco,
G.R. No. L-27033, 1969.), nor should it diminish his zeal in the prosecution or defense of the
client’s interests (Jesus v. Tan, G.R. No. L-9473, 1959). But when that conflict has reached a
point that it not only becomes the lawyer’s duty to withdraw from the action but to assert his
right to compensation because of the intolerable attitude assumed by his client, he may in order
to prevent injustice, fraud, or imposition rightfully resort to lawsuit to recover his fees (Canon 14,
CPE). He may take judicial action to protect his right to fees either in the main action where his
services were rendered or in an independent civil suit against his client (Palanca v. Pecson,
G.R. No. L-6334 and L-6346, 1954).
Lawyer’s application to pay his fees
A lawyer may apply so much of the client’s funds that comes into his possession as may be
necessary to satisfy his fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client
(Canon 16, Rule 16.03, CPR). He should not arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to the
payment of his fees for it would violate of the trust relationship between the attorney and his
client, and would open the door to possible abuse by those who are less than mindful of this
fiduciary duty. The lawyer should, instead, file the necessary action in court to fix and recover
the amount of his fees (J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. v. De Vera, A.C.
No. 3066, 1999).
Independent civil action
A lawyer may take judicial action to protect his right to fees either in the main action whether his
services were rendered or in an independent civil suit against his client (Palanca v. Pecson,
G.R. No. L-6634 and L-66346, 1954).
A lawyer can enforce his right to a reasonable compensation for services rendered in an
independent civil action in cases where:
 The court trying the main action in which the lawyer’s services were rendered dismissed
the client’s action or awarded nothing to the client;
 The court that decided the main litigation had no jurisdiction over the action or had
already lost it;
 The person liable for attorney’s fees is not a party in the main action;
 The court reserved to the lawyer the right to file a separate civil suit for the recovery of
his fees;
 The services for which the lawyer seeks payment were rendered in connection with a
matter not in litigation; (Otto Gmur, Inc. v. Revilla, G.R. No. 34782, 1931) and,
 The court rendered judgment in the Icase without requiring payment for attorney’s fees
and the judgment has become final (Lizardo Sr. v. Montano, G.R. No. 138882 2000).
Remedies in estate proceedings
If the administrator or executor refuses or fails to make payment, the lawyer has two remedies
(IP):
1. An Independent civil action against the administrator or executor in his personal capacity,
and should judgment be secured and the latter pays, the administrator or executor may
include the amount paid in his account filed with the probate court.
2. A Petition with the probate court praying that the court, after due notice to all persons
interested, allow his claim and direct the administrator or executor to pay his fees as
expenses of administration (Aladamiz v. CFI of Mindoro, G.R. No. L-2360, 1949; Sato v.
Rallos, G.R. No. 17194, 1964).
The circumstance that the probate court has lost jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter of fees as
a result of the final closure of the estate proceeding does not foreclose the lawyer’s right to be
paid for his services (Uy Yt. v. Quirina Rios & Sons, G.R. No. 48577, 1944). He may pursue the
claim in an independent civil action against the administrator in his personal capacity and
against the distributees of the assets of the estate (Uy Tioco v. Imperial, G.R. No. L-29414,
1949).
Court jurisdiction
The court having jurisdiction to try the main action in which the lawyer rendered services also
has jurisdiction to pass upon the question of fees even though the total sum thereof is less than
the jurisdictional amount cognizable by the court (Palanca v. Pecson, G.R. No. L-6634 and L-
66346, 1954, Tolentino v. Escalona, G.R. No. 26556, 1864), and continues to have that
jurisdiction until the proceeds of the judgment shall have been delivered to the client (Abedin v.
Natividad, G.R. No. 48491,1942).
An independent civil action for recovery of attorney’s fees is subject to the same jurisdictional
requirement as any other ordinary civil suit. But if a client not only fails to object to the exercises
of the court of the jurisdiction to entertain an action for recovery of attorney’s fees but also asks
some affirmative reliefs he may be estopped, on appeal, to assail the propriety if the action
taken by the trial court in fixing and allowing counsel fees (Tolentino v. Escalona, G.R. No. L-
26886, 1969).
Necessity of hearing
The persons who are entitled to or must pay attorney’s fees have the right to be heard upon the
question of their propriety or amount. The persons entitled to be heard are: the lawyer himself,
the client, the client’s assignees of the interest in litigation (Metropolitan Bank v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 86100-03, January 23, 1990), and the stockholders in a derivative suit
concerning attorney’s fees sought to be charged against corporate funds (Occeňa v. Marquez,
G.R. No. L-27396, 1974).
Until there shall have been a hearing at which all parties concerned are given the opportunity to
be heard, the trial court may not without abusing its discretion, authorize the payment of counsel
fees, especially where the fees claimed are of considerable amount (Meralco Workers’ Union v.
Gaerlan, G.R. No. L-24505, 1970).
Defenses
An action for recovery of attorney’s fees is subject to the usual defenses applicable to an
ordinary civil suit, such as want of jurisdiction, res judicata, prescription of action, nullity of
the contract for professional services, negligence in the discharge of the lawyer’s duties,
lack of attorney-client relationship, the amount claimed is unconscionable.
Execution
A final award of the attorney’s fees may be enforced by execution. The award may be enforced
against any property of the client, including the proceeds of the judgment secured for the client
in the main action (Albano v. Ramos, G.R. No. L-240426, 1967; Harden v. Harden, G.R. No. L-
22174,1967).
(v) Two concepts of attorney’s fees
Attorney’s Fees refer to: (OE)
1. In its ordinary concept, the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the
legal services the former renders; compensation is paid for the cost and/or results of legal
services per agreement or as may be assessed.
2. In its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered
by the court to be paid by the losing party to the winning party, as a penalty (Compania
Maritima, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 128452, 1999). The instances when these may be awarded
are enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, and are payable not to the lawyer but to
the client, unless the client and his lawyer have agreed that the award shall accrue to the
lawyer as additional or part of compensation (Tangga-an v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers,
Inc, G.R. No. 180636, 2013).
(h) Preservation of client's confidences

1. Prohibited disclosures and use
2. Disclosure, when allowed
Note: Please see discussion above on confidentiality.
Termination of Attorney’s Authority and Withdrawal of Counsel
CANON 22 – A Lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances.
A client has the absolute right to discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause.
But this right of the client is not unlimited because good faith is required in terminating the
relationship. The limitation is based on Article 19 of the Civil Code, which mandates that "every
person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith." The right is also subject to the
right of the attorney to be compensated (Malvar v. Kraft Food Phils., G.R. No. 183952, 2013).
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. (Rule 138, Sec. 26, ROC). In the absence of a written
retainer, the attorney shall be entitled to a reasonable amount based on quantum meruit.
Causes of Termination of Attorney-Client Relationship:

1. Withdrawal of the lawyer;
2. Death of the lawyer or the client;
3. Disbarment or suspension of the lawyer from the practice of law;
4. Declaration of presumptive death of the lawyer;
5. Conviction of a crime and imprisonment of the lawyer;
6. Dismissal of the lawyer by the client;
7. Appointment or election of a lawyer to a government position which prohibits private practice
of law;
8. Intervening incapacity or incompetency of the client during the pendency of the case;
9. Client’s death;
10. Full termination of the case.
Necessity of a notice of discharge
As between a client and his attorney – No formal notice of discharge by the client to his/her
attorney is necessary. Any act of the client indicating an unmistakable purpose to terminate the
relation is sufficient.
As between the court and the adverse party – A notice of discharge or a manifestation
clearly indicating that purpose must be filed by the client with the court and a copy thereof
served upon the adverse party. Until such is fulfilled, the lawyer continues to be the counsel in
the case (Canoy v. Ortiz, A.C. No. 5485, 2005).
Death or incapacity of client
General rule: Death or incapacity of the client TERMINATES the attorney-client relationship
Exception: If retained by the administrator, executor, or legal representative of the deceased

client.
Note: Duty of the lawyer in case his client dies (Rule 3, Section 16, ROC):
1. Inform the court of the fact of death
2. Give the names and addresses of legal representative
(i) Withdrawal of Services
Rule 22.01 – A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
a. When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct with the matter
he is handling;
b. When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of the canons and rules
of professional ethics;
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 services or fails to comply with the
retainer agreement;
f. When the lawyer is elected or appointed to a public office; and,
g. Other similar cases.
Procedure for withdrawal

1. File a petition for withdrawal in court;
2. Serve a copy of his petition upon his client and the adverse party at least 3 days before the
date set for hearing;
3. Present his petition well in advance of the trial of the action to enable the client to secure
the services of another lawyer; and,
4. If the application is filed under circumstances that do not afford a substitute counsel
sufficient time to prepare for trial or that work prejudice to the client’s cause, the court may
deny his application and require him to conduct the trial.
Requirements for valid substitution of counsel

1. Filing of a written application for substitution;
2. Written consent of the client; and,
3. Written consent of the attorney to be substituted.
4. In case such written consent cannot be secured, there must be filed with the application
proof of service of the notice of application upon the attorney to be substituted.
Defective substitution and effects thereof

A substitution which does not comply with all of its requirements is defective. Hence, the
appearance of new counsel and his taking over the active conduct of the litigation neither
operates to effect a change of counsel nor to terminate the latter’s authority. (Agpalo, Legal and
Judicial Ethics, p. 383, 2009).
END OF TOPIC
SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT,
AND DISCIPLINE OF
LAWYERS
C. Suspension, disbarment and

discipline of lawyers (Rule 139-B,
as amended by Bar Matter No.
1645)
1. Nature and characteristics of
disciplinary actions against
lawyers
a. Sui generis
b. Prescription
2. Grounds
3. Proceedings
4. Discipline of Filipino lawyers
practicing abroad
NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AGAINST

LAWYERS
(a) SUI GENERIS
Administrative cases are distinct from, and proceed independently from civil and criminal
cases.
In an administrative case for disbarment or suspension, clear preponderance of evidence is all

that is required. Hence, criminal prosecution will not constitute as a prejudicial question
even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings
(Gatchalian Promotions Talent Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017, 1999).
A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action (as it involves no private interest)
nor a criminal prosecution. A disciplinary action is in reality an investigation by the court into the
misconduct of its officer or an examination into his character (In re Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654,
1970). It is merely a test of fitness.
Self-imposed suspension
Only the Supreme Court has the power to impose penalties for unethical conduct against erring
lawyers. The wordings of the Resolution show that the Court merely noted IBP’s findings and
recommended penalty. The IBP findings and the stated penalty thereon are merely
recommendatory, and such cannot attain finality until adopted by the Supreme Court as its own.
Thus, self-imposed compliance with IBP's recommended penalty is premature (Dagohoy v. San
Juan, A.C. No. 7944, 2013).
(b) PRESCRIPTION
The filing of a disciplinary action does not prescribe despite the number of years lapsed (Frias
v. Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 6656, 2006).
The 2006 En Banc case of Frias (supra) expressly struck down Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) which provides that a complaint for
disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys prescribes in two (2) years from the date of
discovery of professional misconduct. The provision runs afoul of the settled rulings of the
Supreme Court and should therefore be struck down as void for being ultra vires. Consequently,
the case of Isenhardt v. Real, A.C. 8254, 2012, decided by a Division, cannot revive the
aforementioned provision.
GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE
1. In General (M.U.)
a. Misconduct or malpractice
b. Unprofessional conduct
2. Breach of Duties to the Court

a. Obstructing justice and abuse of legal process
b. Misleading the court
c. Forum Shopping
d. Proffering false charges
e. Introducing false evidence
f. Blackmail
g. Willfully disobeying the court orders and disrespect to the court
h. Using vicious or disrespectful language
i. Continuing to practice after suspension
3. Breach of Duties to the Client

a. Negligence in the performance of duties
b. Employment of lawful means
c. Deceit or misrepresentation
d. Representing adverse interests and revealing client’s secrets
e. Purchasing client’s property in litigation
f. Failing to account for or misappropriating client’s property
g. Collecting unreasonable fees
h. Acting without authority
i. Willfully appearing without being retained
4. Breach of Duties to the Bar

a. Unethical conduct
b. Defaming fellow lawyer
c. Communicating with adverse party
d. Soliciting business
e. Cooperating in illegal practice of law
5. Other Grounds for Discipline

a. Nonprofessional misconduct
b. Gross immorality
c. Conviction of crime involving moral turpitude
d. Misconduct in the discharge of duties as a public officer
e. Misconduct as notary public
f. Nonpayment of IBP dues
Grounds for Discipline; In General (M.U.)
As a rule, a lawyer may be disciplined for (Rule 138, Sec. 27, ROC):
1. Gross misconduct or malpractice

Refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents
or brokers, constitutes malpractice (Id.).
2. Unprofessional conduct
That which is unbecoming a member of that profession.
Gross misconduct, malpractice, or unprofessional conduct, constitute grounds for disciplinary

action (Uy Chung Seng and Ching Uy Seng v. Atty. Magat, Adm. Case No. L-2018, 1982).
Enumerated grounds not exclusive
The enumeration is not exclusive (Rayong v. Oblena, A.C. No. 376, April 30, 1963). A lawyer
may be removed from office or suspended from the practice of law on the grounds other than
those specifically provided in the law (Bolivar v. De Leon, 50 O.G. 583, 1954; Mortel v. Aspiras,
G.R. No. L-9152, 1956; Rayong v. Oblena, A.C. No. 376, 1963).
Any misconduct on the part of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity which shows
him to be wanting in moral character may justify his suspension or removal from office even
though the law does not specify the acts as a ground for disciplinary action (Mortel v. Aspiras,
G.R. No. L-9152, 1956).
Misconduct before or incident to admission
Broadly speaking, the grounds for disbarment or suspension of a lawyer consist of those acts
of misconduct committed before and after his admission to practice. The acts of
misconduct prior to admission include those which indicate that at the time the lawyer took his
oath, he did not possess the required qualifications for membership in the bar.
Two requisites must concur before he may be suspended or disbarred for misconduct
committed before his admission:
1. The act imputed to him must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or
so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree (Soberano v. Villanueva, A.C.
No. 215, 1962; Villasanta v. Peralta, G.R. AC-UNAV, 1957); and;
2. The act charged must be established by clearly preponderant evidence (Lim v. Antonio,
41 SCRA 44, 1971).
On the other hand, grounds for suspension or disbarment based on acts committed after the
lawyer’s admission to the bar are those which cause loss of moral character on his part
(Advincula v. Atty. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204, 2007) or involve violation of his duties to the
court, to his client, to the legal profession, and to the public.
Misconduct committed outside Philippine jurisdiction
The rule is that a Philippine lawyer may practice law only in the Philippines. He may, however,
be admitted to the bar in a foreign country so that he can practice law in both countries. If he
commits misconduct outside Philippine jurisdiction, which is also a ground for disciplinary action
under Philippine law, he may be suspended or disbarred in this country.
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Supreme Court Resolution dated
February 13, 1992, states:
“The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is
a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts
hereinabove enumerated. The judgment or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall
be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension.” (as cited in In Re
Maquera, B.M. No. 793, July 30, 2004, and Velez v. De Vera, A.C. No. 6697, 2006).
Breach of Duties to the Court
(a) Generally
An attorney is an officer of the court whose obligations to the court are more significant and
important than his obligations to his clients (Cantorne v. Ducasin, 577 Phil. 23, 1932; Cobb-
Perez v. Lantin, G.R. L-22320, 1968; In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562, 1970). He may be
admonished, censured, fined, suspended or disbarred for breach of his duties to the court that
affects his professional integrity, his obligations as a lawyer or his fitness as an officer of the
court (In re Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, 1970).
(b) Obstructing justice and abuse of legal process
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 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 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.
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 or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Any act on the part of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts or impedes the administration of justice
constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against him (Cantorne v. Ducasin, 577
Phil. 23, 1932; De Los Santos v. Sagalongos, A.C. No. L-745, 1940). Ordinarily, obstruction in
the administration of justice constitutes contempt of court, and citing the offender for contempt
and punishing him for such misbehavior may be sufficient to accomplish the end desired.
However, misbehavior may be of such character as to affect the offender’s qualifications as a
lawyer for the practice of his profession. In such a case, he may be disciplined as an attorney
for such misconduct (In Re Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, 1970).
(c) Misleading the court
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 the 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 as provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Canon 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, he owes
candor, fairness and good faith to the courts. He shall neither do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any. He also has a duty not to mislead or allow the courts to be misled by any
artifice (Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Flores, A.C. No. 4058, 1998).
(d) Forum Shopping
Rule 12.02 – A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.
A willful violation of the non-forum shopping rule constitutes direct contempt of court and makes
the lawyer liable administratively, such as suspension from practice of law for one year
(Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Flores, A.C. No. 4058, 1998).
(e) Proffering false charges
Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in the Court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
A lawyer, including a public prosecutor, may be disciplined for filing or prosecuting false charges
against another, for his action is a violation of his sword duty to do no falsehood nor consent to
the doing of any in court, nor wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or
unlawful suit (Retuya v. Gorduiz, A.M. No. 1388, 1980; Mabutas v. Nable, A.C. No. 1827, 1978;
Natam v. Cappule, A.C. No. 76, 1952).
To warrant disciplinary action against a lawyer for preferring or prosecuting false charges or
complaints, it must be shown that the charges are false and the lawyer knows them to be so,
in spite of which he nevertheless filed them. In short, the lawyer must have been moved by
malice or bad faith. However, if the charges are not entirely false and have been filed to
protect the lawyer’s interest and that of his client, such action, on the part of the lawyer does not
warrant disciplinary sanction.
(f) Introducing false evidence
Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in the Court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for knowingly presenting or introducing false evidence
in any proceeding as his act is a violation of his oath to do no falsehood nor consent to the
doing of any in court (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 505, 2009). His action constitutes a
willful disregard of his solemn duty to act at all times in a manner consistent with the truth
(Bautista v. Gonzales, AM No. 1625, 1990).
(g) Blackmail
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 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.
Blackmail is the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation of exposure or

opposition in the public prints, obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining from
making an accusation against him, or disclosing some secret which is calculated to operate to
his prejudice (Pena v. Aparicio, A.C. No. 7298, 2007).
(h) Willfully disobeying the court orders and disrespect to the court
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 10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice
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
Rule 11.05 – A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
The term “willful” conveys the idea of flagrant misconduct such as would indicate a disposition
on the part of a lawyer so refractory in its character as to affect his qualifications and standing
for the further exercise of his office as attorney (In Re: MacDougall, G.R. No. L-1167, 1903).
(i) Using vicious or disrespectful language
Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper
Rule 11.03 – A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts
The use by a lawyer of vicious, intemperate, abrasive, threatening or disrespectful language

against the judge constitutes direct contempt as well as a violation of the lawyer’s oath and a
transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility (In re Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654,
1970).
(j) Continuing to practice after suspension
A lawyer may be disbarred for continuing to practice after his suspension from the practice of
law (In re David, A.C. No. 98, 1953).
Reason: His continuing to practice his profession during his suspension constitutes a gross
misconduct and a willful disregard of the suspension order, which should be obeyed though how
erroneous it may be until set aside (De Leon v. Torres, A.C. No. 180, 1956).
Breach of Duties to the Client
(a) Generally
A lawyer owes his client the duty of entire devotion to his genuine interest, undivided allegiance,
loyalty, fidelity and absolute integrity. Gross violation of such duty subjects the lawyer to
disciplinary action (In re Oliva, A.C. No. 228, 1958; Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
108763, 1998).
(b) Negligence in the performance of duties
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable..
The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of the client’s cause makes the lawyer
unworthy of the trust which the client has reposed in him. There is no hard and fast rule as to
what is gross misconduct in the performance of the lawyer’s duty to his client. That question
depends upon the circumstances if the case, the nature of the act done and the motive which
induced him to do the act charged (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 520, 2009; Seares Jr.
v. Gonzales-Alzate, Adm. Case No. 9058, 2012).
(c) Employment of lawful means
Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 of the CPR ordain that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objective of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting,
or threaten to present unfounded charges to obtain improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
(d) Deceit or misrepresentation
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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 12.06 – A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another
A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for deceit or misrepresentation to the prejudice of or

as a means to defraud his client (In re Paraiso, 41 Phil. 24, 1920; Daroy v. Legaspi, A.C. No.
936, 1975; Merritt v. Cacamindin, 125 SCRA 386, 1983). Implicit in these fraudulent acts are
bad faith on the part of the lawyer and material damage to the client, which are the requisites
that should concur to justify the suspension or disbarment of the lawyer on the ground deceit or
misrepresentation.
(e) Representing adverse interests and revealing client’s secrets
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
In the absence of written consent on the part of the clients concerned, a lawyer may not
represent conflicting interests without being disciplined for such misconduct (In re Hamilton,
G.R. No. L-7725, 1913; Natan v. Capule, A.C. No. 76, 1952; Sumangil v. Sta. Romana, G.R. No.
25, 1949). The reason is that the representation of conflicting interests not only constitutes
malpractice (Cantorne v. Ducasin, 57 Phil. 23, 1932) but is also a violation of the attorney-client
relationship as well a lawyer’s duty to a court (In re Hamilton, G.R. No. L-7725, 1913; Natam v.
Capule, A.C. No. 76, 1952).
(f) Purchasing client’s property in litigation
Article 1491 (5) – The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or
judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another: xxx
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other
officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in
litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they
exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment
and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of
any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.
The law expressly prohibits a lawyer from purchasing his client’s property in litigation (Art. 1491,
Civil Code). It is sufficient to hold the lawyer liable on that ground, that he is counsel for a client
at the time he acquires, by himself or through another, during the pendency of the litigation, the
client’s property or interest involved therein. Good faith on the part of the lawyer is not even a
defense, although it mitigates his liability (Beltran v. Fernandez, A.M. 747, 1940; In re Adriatico,
G.R. L-7532, 1910).
(g) Failing to account for or misappropriating client’s property
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 other skept 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.
While a lawyer has a right to be paid for the legal services he has rendered to his client, he
should not exercise such right whimsically by appropriating to himself the client’s money to pay
his fees without the client’s consent. His doing so makes him administratively liable for deceit in
dealing with his client (Rivera v. Angeles, A.C. 2519, 2000).
(h) Collecting unreasonable fees
Indicate the specific provisions of law and the CPR that are violated.
A lawyer may be disciplined for collecting exorbitant fees for his services, applying the client’s
money to pay his unreasonable claim for work done without the client’s consent or refusing to
return to his client what he collected as payment or for refusing to return to his client what he
collected as payment for professional services which he never rendered (Espere v. Santos,
Adm. Case 151, 1955). What amounts to reasonably exorbitant fees depends upon the
circumstances of each case. Where, however, a law fixes a maximum amount which a lawyer
may charge his client for his professional services in a particular matter, the collection of more
than what the law allows constitutes malpractice sufficient to justify disciplinary action against
the lawyer (Narido v. Linsangan, A.M. No. 944, 1974; Katalbas v. Tupas, Adm. Case No. 382,
1959).
(i) Acting without authority

Indicate the specific provisions of law and the CPR that are violated.
A lawyer can bind his client without special power from the latter only in matters of procedure.
The lawyer, may, therefore, be disciplined for compromising, settling, dismissing, waiving or
disposing of his client’s cause, property, interest without prior authority from the client because
any of such steps does not involve matters of procedure (Gonzales v. Parenas, A.C. No. 1797,
1979; Aldana v. Abad, A.C. No. 90, 1956).
(j) Willfully appearing without being retained
Rule 8.02 – A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly encroach upon the professional employment
of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper
advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
A lawyer may not represent a litigant without authority from the latter or from the latter’s
representative or, in the absence thereof, without leave of court (Rule 138, Sec. 21, ROC). His
unsolicited appearance in court for the insured, in the absence of attorney-client relationship, is
unbecoming of a member of the bar (Porac Trucking, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81093,
1990). The lawyer’s appearance for a party without the latter’s authority must be willful,
corrupt or contumacious in order that he may be held liable held therefor. If he acts in
good faith, then the complaint for suspension or disbarment must fail (Garrido v. Quisumbing,
A.M. No. L-840, 1969).
Breach of Duties to the Bar
(a) Unethical conduct, generally
Unprofessional conduct is that which violates the rules of ethical code of the legal profession or
which is unbecoming of a member of the bar (Tan Bek Keng v. David, A.M. No. 1261, 1983).
(b) Defaming fellow lawyers
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.
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 8.02 – 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
Doctrine of Absolute Privilege: Must be relevant to the issue being tried.
General Rule: It is unethical for a lawyer to use improper and objectionable language against
another lawyer or to cause him wantonly and maliciously of a serious misconduct in the
absence of a reasonable cause (Asturias Sugar Central v. Pure Cane Mollasses Co., G.R. No.
L- 40709, 1934).
Exception: Strongly worded statement by a lawyer against opposing counsel, if justified by the
records, may not justify disciplinary action against him (Phil. Surety & Ins. Co. v. Royal Oil
Product, G.R. No. L-11936, 1959).
(c) Communicating with adverse party
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
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics provides that a “lawyer should not in any way
communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less
should he undertake to negotiate or compromise with matter with him, but should only deal with
his counsel.”
Violation of this canon entails disciplinary sanction, such as suspension from the practice of law
for 3 months (Camacho v. Pangulayan, A.C. No. 4807, 2000).
(d) Soliciting business
The solicitation by a lawyer of cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice sufficient to warrant the lawyer’s reprimand,
suspension from the practice of law or removal from office (Rule 138, Sec. 27, ROC).
(e) Cooperating in illegal practice of law
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.
A layman or a disbarred or suspended lawyer may not practice law without being held liable for
contempt of court (ROC, Rule 71, Sec. 3). The Canons of Professional Ethics warn that “no
lawyer shall permit his professional services, or his name, to be used in aid of, or to make
possible, the unauthorized practice of law by any law agency, personal or corporate” (Canon
47, CPE).
Other Grounds for Discipline
(a) Nonprofessional misconduct
General Rule: A lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred for any act in his private capacity
(In re Edillon, G.R. No. A.C.-1928, 1978).
Exception: When however the misconduct is so grave that would make him morally unfit for the
office and unworthy of the privilege, the court may suspend or disbar him (Melendez v. Decena,
A.M. No. 2104, 1989).
Gross misconduct on the part of the lawyer may put his moral character in serious doubt and
may render him unfit to continue the practice of law (Balinon v. De Leon, A.C. No. 104, 1954).
(b) Gross Immorality

A “grossly immoral act” is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to the highest degree (Narag v. Narag, A.C.
No. 3405, 1998).
Even if a lawyer is not judged as grossly immoral, he may nonetheless be reprimanded where
such evidence shows failure on his part to comply with the rigorous standards of conduct
appropriately required from members of the bar and court (Tolosa v. Cargo, A.M. No. 2385,
1982).
(c) Conviction of crime involving moral turpitude
An attorney may be suspended or disbarred by reason of his conviction of a crime involving

moral turpitude (De Jesus-Paras v. Vailoces, G.R. No. 439, 1961).
NOTE: Please see previous discussion on moral turpitude.
(d) Misconduct in the discharge of duties as a public officer
Former Rule: A lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of
the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official (Cruz v. Cabal,
Adm. Case No. 482, 1964).
New Rule: However, with the promulgation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the ruling
in Cruz has lost its validity because Canon 6 of the Code states that the Code applies to lawyers
in government service in the discharge of their official tasks and makes their negligence in the
performance of their duties as government lawyers a ground for disciplinary action.
In case of government lawyers, administrative discipline may be imposed by both the Civil
Service Commission (because he is a civil servant) and by the Supreme Court (because he is a
lawyer).
(e) Misconduct as notary public
Two-fold penalty:
 For the act and omission as a notary public; and,
 For act or omission as a lawyer.
By applying for and having himself commissioned as notary public, a lawyer assumes these
duties in a dual capacity, in the non-performance of which duties he may be disciplined as a
member of the bar. He may be held to account as a lawyer for an act as a notary public of a
disgraceful or immoral character even to the extent of the disbarment (Benguet Electric
Cooperative v. Flores, A.C. No. 4058, 1998).
(f) Nonpayment of IBP dues
Membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is a condition precedent for the practice of
law and for maintaining his name in the Roll of Attorneys (In re Integration of the Integrated Bar,
49 SCRA 22, January 9, 1973). The lawyer’s failure or refusal to pay such dues or special
assessments for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and
default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the
delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys (In re: Edillon, A.M. No. 1928, 1978).
The ruling in In re: Edillon, was reiterated in a more recent case, where the Supreme Court held:
Respondent can only engage in the practice of law by paying his dues. It does not matter that
his practice is "limited'. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay
annual dues and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership
(Santos v. Llamas, A.C. No 4749, 2000).
PROCEEDINGS
Nature of Proceedings
(a) Desistance or withdrawal by the complainant does not exonerate the lawyer
Rule 139-B, Section 5, as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645 (dated October 13, 2015) expressly
provides:
“No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement,

compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute
the same, unless the Supreme Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors, determines that there is no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or
suspension proceedings against the respondent.”
Desistance or withdrawal of the disbarment case does not exonerate the lawyer (Ylaya v. Atty.
Gacott, Adm. Case No. 6475, 2013). A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed
regardless of the interest or lack of interest of the complainant (Quiachon v. Atty. Ramos, A.C.
No. 9317, 2014). Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended
or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges (Rayos-
Ombac v. Rayos, A.C. No. 2884, 1998).
Neither will acquittal in or a dismissal of a criminal case automatically result in the dismissal of
the administrative case (Saludo, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 121404, 2006).
(b) Administrative cases against court officials who are lawyers are automatically
considered disciplinary proceedings
According to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, if an administrative case 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 disciplinary action of members
of the Bar, the same shall be considered a disciplinary action against the respondent. Judgment
in both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution. Prior to the issuance of this
resolution, disciplinary and administrative cases were treated separately.
It is not necessary that the respondent be asked to comment separately as a lawyer for
disciplinary action and as a member of the bench for administrative liability. (Samson v.
Caballero, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138, 2009).
However, in a recent case, the Supreme Court En Banc required Judge Yu to comment
separately on the disbarment charges. Justice Brion dissented, stating that outright disbarment
is warranted under the circumstances and Judge Yu had more than ample opportunity to defend
herself in the administrative proceedings (OCA v. Judge Eliza Yu, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, 2016).
This deviated from the Samson case, which was also an En Banc case.
(c) Complainant need not suffer injury
The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that
the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrong (Atty. Navarro v. Atty. Nemeses
III, CBD A.C. No. 313, 1998). This is because disbarment proceedings are matters of public
interest (Id.).
(d) The complainant need not be a real party in interest
The requirement in ordinary civil actions that only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit
does not apply in disbarment cases (Figueras v. Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116, 2014). The
complainant in disbarment cases "is in no sense a party, and generally has no interest in the
outcome" (Id.). Moreover, the right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients
nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing (Id.).
(e) Proceedings are confidential
General Rule: A disciplinary proceeding against an attorney is confidential in nature until its
final determination (Murillo v. Superable, Jr., A.C. No. 341, 1960).
Exception: Waiver
3-Fold Purpose of confidentiality (PED):
1. To protect the personal and professional reputation of attorneys from baseless charges
by disgruntled, vindictive, and irresponsible persons or clients by prohibiting the
publication of such charges pending final resolution.
2. To enable the court to make its investigation free from any extraneous influence or
interference.
3. To deter the press from publishing the charges or proceedings based thereon (Villalon v.
Intermediate Apprellate Court, G.R. No. 73751, 1986).
Q: Atty. X, together with Y, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Z for continuously delaying
the proceedings in the Ampatuan massacre case. Atty. X distributed copies of the disbarment
complaint to the media. While the disbarment case was pending, Atty. Z filed a petition for
contempt against Atty. X and Y, and the different media personnel involved, claiming that the
latter violated Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court (confidential nature of disbarment proceedings).
Atty. Z alleged that participating in media interviews and publishing articles concerning his
actions in different newspapers violated such rule. Is Atty. Z correct?
A: Because of the public nature of the Ampatuan massacre, the media is not prohibited
from making a fair, true and accurate news report of the disbarment proceedings. In the
absence of a legitimate public interest in a disbarment complaint, members of the media must
preserve the confidentiality of disbarment proceedings during its pendency.
However, Atty. X is guilty of indirect contempt. As a lawyer and an officer of the Court, Atty. X
is familiar with the confidential nature of disbarment proceedings. However, instead of
preserving its confidentiality, Atty. X disseminated copies of the disbarment complaint against
Atty. Z to members of the media which act constitutes contempt of court (Fortun v. Quisayas,
G.R. No. 194578, 2013).
Procedure for disbarment (Rule 139-B, ROC; as amended by B.M. 1645, October 15, 2015):
 Institution either by:

o The Supreme Court, motu proprio;
o The IBP, motu proprio; OR
o Upon verified complaint by any person filed with the Supreme Court or the IBP.
 If instituted by the Supreme Court motu proprio or via verified complaint directly filed with it,
it may assign the investigation to the Office of the Bar Confidant, any officer of the Supreme
Court, or a judge of a lower court. The review of the report of investigation shall be
conducted directly by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may also refer the
investigation to the IBP.
 If filed against incumbent Justices of the CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA, and judges of lower
courts or against lawyers in government service, whether charged singly or jointly with
others, the complaint must be directly forwarded to the Supreme Court.
 If instituted upon verified complaint with the IBP or the investigation has been referred to the
IBP, the records shall be referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (previously known as
National Grievance) investigators.
 Board of Governors decides within 30 days
 Investigation by the Solicitor-General
o Six copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or
Secretary of any of its chapter and shall be forwarded to the IBP Board of Governors.
 SC renders final decision for disbarment/suspension/ dismissal.
(a) Initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court may itself initiate disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer who has so
conducted himself in a case pending before it as to show blatant disrespect to the Court, want of
good moral character or violation of his oath, by issuing a showcase order (Zaldivar v.
Gonzales, G.R. No. 79690-707, 1989).
(b) Where complaint initiated by the Supreme Court is found to be prima facie
meritorious
Where a complaint initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court is found to be prima facie
meritorious, the latter may then refer the same to the IBP Board of Governors for appropriate
action. However, reference to the IBP is not mandatory. The Supreme Court may refer the
complaint for investigation, report and recommendation to the Solicitor General, any officer of
the court or judge of a lower court, on the basis of which the Court will have its final action
(Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M. No. 1625, 1990).
(c) Action on, and investigation of, complaint
A complaint for disciplinary action must allege specific facts which constitute particular breaches
or violations of law or The Code of Professional Responsibility or legal ethics.
The Commission on Bar Discipline investigator or, if so required by the IBP Board of Governors,
a panel of 3 investigators, to whom the complaint is assigned, will ascertain whether said
complaint is meritorious.
1. If meritorious, the investigator shall direct that a copy be served to the respondent,
requiring him to answer within 15 days from the date of service.
2. If unmeritorious, the investigator shall recommend dismissal of the complaint to the IBP
Board of Governors (Rule 139-B, Secs. 2, 3 and 5, ROC as amended by B.M. 1645.
October 15, 2015).
If meritorious, the respondent must file an answer.
The answer must be verified. The original and 5 legible copies shall be filed with the
investigator, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the complainant or his counsel (Rule 139-
B, Sec. 6, ROC), If the respondent does not file an answer, the investigation shall proceed ex
parte. In any case, the investigation shall be terminated within 3 months from the date of the
commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior
application (Rule 139-B, Sec. 8, ROC).
(d) Report of the investigator and decision of the Board of Governors
Not later than 30 days from the termination of the investigation, the investigator shall submit a
report containing his findings of fact and recommendations to the IBP Board of Governors,
together with the stenographic notes and the transcript of the investigation thereof, and all
evidence presented during the investigation. He may recommend that the respondent be
exonerated of the charges, or admonished, reprimanded, fined, suspended from practice, or
disbarred, as the evidence may warrant (Rule 139-B, Sec. 10, ROC).
The IBP Board of Governors shall review every case heard by an investigator upon the record
and evidence transmitted to it. The recommendation of the Board shall be in writing and shall
clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based (Rule 139-B, Sec. 12,
ROC).
The IBP Board shall promulgate its recommendation within a period not exceeding 30
days from the next meeting of the Board following the submission of the investigation
report. The Board shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations clearly
and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it was based. The resolution, together
with the entire records and all the evidence presented and submitted shall be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action within 10 days from issuance of the resolution. Notice shall be
given to all parties through their counsel, if any. (Rule 139-B, Secs. 2, 3 and 5, ROC as
amended by B.M. 1645, October 15, 2015).
Once a petition for review is filed, the Supreme Court shall decide the case in accordance with
the following rules:
In case of 2 or more suspensions of the lawyer, service of the same shall be successive, not
simultaneous (Investment and Management Service Corp. v. Roxas, A.C. No. 1417, 1996).
Proceedings in the Supreme Court by other courts
Situation: Referral of cases to the Solicitor General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or
Judge of the lower court.
In proceedings initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court or in other proceedings when the
interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case for investigation, report or
recommendation to the Solicitor General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of the
lower court (Rule 139-B, Sec. 13, ROC).
Pending final resolution of the complaint investigated by the IBP investigator or of the
proceeding initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court upon proper
recommendation may suspend the respondent from the practice of law until the suspension is
lifted by the Supreme Court (Rule 139-B, Sec. 15, ROC). The CA or RTC may suspend an
attorney after due notice and opportunity to be heard, until further action of the Supreme Court
(Rule 139-B, Sec. 16, ROC).
(a) Res ipsa loquitur
Where the facts of record sufficiently provide the basis for the determination of a lawyer’s
administrative liability, he may be disciplined or disbarred by the Supreme Court without further
inquiry or investigation. A trial type hearing is not necessary, as the lawyer has been fully heard
in his pleadings (Prudential Bank v. Castro, A.M. No. 2756, 1986).
(b) Defenses, generally
When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the
charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. He must
show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times
is expected of him (Radjaie v. Alovera, A.C. No. 4748, 2000).
Defenses not available: (Double Pari – Good PARE)

1. Double jeopardy – There can be no double jeopardy as he is not being tried for same
offense but for his failure to abide by his lawyer’s oath;
2. When both parties are in pari delicto (Mortel v. Aspiras, G.R. No. L-9152, 1956);
3. Good faith, except when bad faith or willfulness is an indispensable element of the charge
against the lawyer (Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979, 1967);
4. Pardon by the offended party;
5. Acquittal of a lawyer of a crime upon which the disbarment proceeding is based (In re Del
Rosario, 52 Phil. 399, 1928);
6. Restitution to the injured person;
7. Estoppel; and,
8. Executive pardon.
An absolute and unconditional pardon by the President "reaches both the punishment
prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases
the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is
as innocent as if he had never committed the offense." "If granted after conviction, it removes
the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a
new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.” (In re Lontok, 43 Phil. 293, 1992, as cited
in In re Parcasio, A.M. No. 1000, 1966).
An absolute pardon operates to wipe out the conviction as well as the offense itself, and the
grant thereof in favor of a lawyer is a bar to a proceeding for disbarment against him based
solely on the commission of such offense (In re Parcasio, A.M. No. 1000, 1966).
However, an absolute pardon subsequently granted to a lawyer who had previously

been disbarred for conviction of a crime does not automatically entitle him to
reinstatement to the bar, because only the Supreme Court can reinstate a disbarred
lawyer (In re Rovero, A.C. No. 126, 1952).
Conditional Pardon not a bar
A conditional pardon or the remission of the unexpired portion of the sentence does not operate
as a bar to the disbarment proceeding (In re Lontok, 43 Phil.293, 1922).
Effects of Pardon
Sesbreño cited In re: Atty. Parcasio to bolster his argument. In that case, Atty. Parcasio was granted “an
absolute and unconditional partdon” which restored his “full civil and political rights,” a circumstance not
present in these cases. Here, the Order of Commutation did not state that the pardon was absolute and
unconditional. The accessory penalties were not mentioned when the original sentence was recited in the
Order of Commutation and they were also not mentioned in stating the commuted sentence.
There are four acts of executive clemency that the President can extend: the President can grant reprieves,
commutations, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. Commutation is a mere
reduction of penalty. Commutation only partially extinguished criminal liability. The penalty for
Sesbreño’s crime was never wiped out (Garcia v. Sesbreno, A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, 2015).
(c) Presumption; burden of proof

In the absence of contrary proof, the presumption is that the lawyer is innocent of the charges
and has performed his duty as an officer of the court in accordance with his oath (Acosta v.
Serrano, A.C. No. 1246, 1977). The burden of proof rests upon the complainant to overcome the
presumption (Baldoman v. Luspo, A.C. No. 1081, 1975).
In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only “clear preponderance of

evidence” is required to establish liability. As long as the evidence presented by complainant or
that taken judicial notice of by the Court is more convincing and worthy of belief than that which
is offered in opposition thereto, the imposition of disciplinary sanction is justified (Pimentel, Jr. v.
Llorente, G.R. No. 133509, 2000).
In the absence of convincing or clearly preponderant evidence, the disbarment case against the
respondent should be dismissed (Argona v. Cruz, A.C. No. 4934, 1975).
(d) Modifying Circumstances
The extent of disciplinary sanction which the court may impose against an erring lawyer may
depend upon the attendance of mitigating circumstances. Generally, the presence of mitigating
circumstances may justify suspension instead of disbarment (In re Tagorda, 53 Phil. 38, 1929),
and censure or reprimand instead of suspension (Acuna v. Dunca, A.C. No. 138, 1961). The
inverse rule may apply where aggravating circumstances are present (Visayan Stevedore
Transp. Co. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-21696, 1977).
(e) Judgment
The Supreme Court decides the disciplinary action on the basis of the evidence adduced during
the investigation conducted for the purpose. The Court may also take into account the report
and recommendation of the investigator.
But, with respect to decisions raised to the SC from the CA or the RTC for review, the Court may
require that the whole of the record of the case be forwarded to it (In re Brilliantes, A.M. No.
1245, 1977).
General Rule: In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the SC cannot order the guilty
lawyer to pay the amounts he owes to the complaining party because the Court’s only concern
is the determination of administrative liability. The Court’s findings have no material bearing on
other judicial action which the parties may choose to file against each other (The Flight Shop,
Inc. v. Barican, G.R. No. 9950, 2014).
Exception: When a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose involving the
client-attorney relationship. In these cases, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the
client showing that the money was spent for that particular purpose. If the lawyer does not use
the money for the intended purpose, he must return the money to his client. Thus, in a 2014
disbarment case where the lawyer received advances from his client to defray the expenses
connected with a case he was handling, and where the lawyer failed to account for these sums,
the SC directed the lawyer to return the amounts given by his client in addition to imposing the
penalty of disbarment upon him (Navarro v. Solidum, A.C. No. 9872, 2014).
(f) Fulfillment of certain conditions

In dismissing a case against a lawyer, the court may impose certain conditions if the facts so
warrant.
Disciplinary sanctions, basic considerations
While it is discretionary upon the court to impose a particular sanction that it may deem proper
against an erring lawyer, taking into account the attendant aggravating or mitigating
circumstances, it should neither be arbitrary or despotic nor motivated by personal animosity or
prejudice but should ever be controlled by the independence of the bar and to exact from the
lawyer strict compliance with his duties to the court, to his client, to his brethren in the
profession and to the public (In re Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, 1970).
(a) Effects of suspension or disbarment
A judgment of suspension or disbarment is self-executory. A lawyer who has been disbarred or

one who has been suspended from practice cannot practice law without being held liable for
contempt of court. A judgment of suspension or disbarment is always subject to change or
modification by the court, regardless of the period that has lapsed. The court may, at any time
when justice so warrants, modify the penalty of disbarment to one of suspension.
Even if the suspension is for a fixed period, a lawyer must still seek leave from the Supreme
Court to resume law practice (Maniago v. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472, 2010).
DISCIPLINE OF FILIPINO LAWYERS PRACTICING ABROAD
Mere congeniality between a judge and a governor may not necessarily be unethical, but it may
still create the appearance of impropriety. The relationship in this case was not necessarily
detrimental to judicial independence, provided that there was no showing that such relations
were for corrupt ends (Suspension of Clerk of Court of Jacobo, A.M. No. 93-10-1296-RTC,
1998).
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinary agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a
ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts
hereinabove enumerated (In Re: Suspension Atty. Maquera, B.M. 793, 2004).
END OF TOPIC
READMISSION TO
THE BAR
Readmission to the Bar

1. Lawyers who have been
disbarred
suspended
3.
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN

SUSPENDED
The Supreme Court has the exclusive

authority to reinstate a disbarred or
indefinitely suspended lawyer to the
office of attorney-at-law. It may reinstate
him for reasons and upon assurances
satisfactory to the court (In re Adriatico,
G.R. No. L-2532, 1910).
repatriated
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN DISBARRED
Reinstatement, in disbarment proceedings, is the restoration of the privilege to practice law to a

disbarred lawyer.
The power of the Supreme Court to reinstate is based on its constitutional prerogative to
promulgate rules on the admission of applicants to the practice of law (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5], 1987
Constitution).
The Supreme Court, in addition to the required rehabilitation of the applicant for reinstatement,
may require special conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant.
Reinstatement to the roll of attorneys wipes out the restrictions and disabilities resulting from a
previous disbarment (Cui v. Cui, G.R. No. L-18727, 1964).
To be reinstated, there is still a need for the filing of an appropriate petition with the Supreme
Court (In Re: Rovero, A.C. No. 126, 1980).
Guidelines for Lifting an Order Suspending a Lawyer from the Practice of Law
(Ibaa-Andade v. Atty. Eva Patta-Moya, A.C. No. 8313, 2015):
1. After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court
shall render a Decision imposing the penalty;
2. Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt
thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for Reconsideration thereof.
The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory;
3. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement
with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has
desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his
or her suspension;
4. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the
Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or her,
and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel;
5. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as Proof of respondent’s compliance with the
order of suspension;
6. Any finding or Report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a
ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be
warranted.
The criteria for reinstatement have been stated as follows (C-SPG; “see spaghetti”):
1. The court will take into consideration the applicant's Character and standing prior to the
disbarment, the nature and character of the charge for which he was disbarred, his conduct
subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and
the application for reinstatement.
2. Whether or not the applicant shall be reinstated rests to a great extent in the Sound
discretion of the court.
3. The court action will depend, generally speaking, on whether or not it decides that the
Public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will be conserved by the
applicant's participation therein in the capacity of an attorney and counselor at law.
4. The applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the court that he is a
person of Good moral character, and a fit and proper person to practice law. (In Re:
Petition for Reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys, Juan T, 22081, 1981; Prudential Bank v.
Grecia, A.M. No. 2756, 1990).
Clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the
preservation of public confidence in the courts. The Court will grant it only if there is a showing
that it is merited. Proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are indispensable
(In re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, appealing for judicial clemency, A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC,
2007).
Guidelines for resolving requests for Judicial Clemency (PART – Relevant):
1. There must be a showing of Promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen
or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or
administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
2. The Age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years
ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
3. There must be proof of Remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be
limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer/s or chapter/s of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with
proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the
same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.
4. Sufficient Time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reform.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.
(In re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, appealing for judicial clemency, A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC,
2007; Talens-Dabon v. Arceo, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336, 2012; Macarubbo v. Macarubbo, A.C. No.
6148, 2013)
Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must, like any other candidate for
admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character (Macarubbo
v. Macarubbo, A.C. No. 6148, 2013).
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED
The Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to reinstate a disbarred or indefinitely
suspended lawyer to the office of attorney-at-law. It may reinstate him for reasons and upon
assurances satisfactory to the court (In re Adriatico, G.R. No. L-2532, 1910).
LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN REPATRIATED
A Filipino lawyer who became a citizen of another country and later reacquired Filipino
citizenship under RA 9225 remains a member of the Philippine Bar. However, the right to
resume the practice of law is not automatic. RA 9225 provides that a person reacquiring Filipino
citizenship, who intends to practice law in the Philippines, must apply with the Office of the Bar
Confidant for a license or permit to engage in such practice, together with the following
requirements:
9. Petition for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship;

10. Order for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship;
11. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
12. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration;
13. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
14. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual membership dues;
15. Proof of payment of professional tax; and,
16. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.
(In Re: Petition to Re-acquire the Privilege to Practice Law in the Philippines, BM No. 2112,
2012)
END OF TOPIC
MANDATORY CONTINUING
LEGAL EDUCATION
E. Mandatory Continuing Legal

Education
1. Purpose
2. Requirements
3. Compliance
4. Exemptions
5. Sanctions
6. Bar Matter 2012 (Rule on
Mandatory Legal Aid
Service)
PURPOSE: to ensure that throughout their career, lawyers will keep abreast of the law and
jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice
of law. (b.m. 850, rule 1, sec. 1).
REQUIREMENTS
(a) Who are required to comply?
All members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, from 3rd year of membership onwards.
(b) Requirements of Completion of MCLE:
Shall complete every 3 years at least 36 hours of continuing legal education activities. The 36
hours shall be divided as follows:
 2 hours – International law and international conventions
 4 hours – Legal writing and oral advocacy
 4 hours – Trial and pretrial skills
 5 hours – Alternative dispute resolution
 6 hours – Legal ethics
 9 hours – Updates on substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence
 Remaining 6 hours – Such other subjects as may be prescribed by the Committee on MCLE
(B.M. 850, Rule 1, Sec. 2).
COMPLIANCE
(a) Compliance Period: The initial compliance period shall begin not later than 3 months
from the adoption of the IBP of the Rules.
 B.M. 850 was adopted on August 22, 2000 and took effect on September 15, 2000.
(b) Compliance Groups shall be designated:

 Compliance Group 1 – Members in the NCR (Metro Manila)

 Compliance Group 2 – Members in Luzon
 Compliance Group 3 – Members in Visayas and Mindanao (B.M. 850, Rule 3, Sec.
2).
NOTE: Members may participate in any legal education activity wherever it may be available to
earn credit unit.
(c) Credit Units: For every class of credit, a corresponding number of credit units shall
be assigned.
(d) Classes of Credits:
1. Participatory credit units:

a. Attending approved education activities like seminars, conventions, symposia, and
the like;
b. Speaking or lecturing, or assigned as panelist, reactor, or commentator, etc. in
approved education activities; and,
c. Teaching in law school or lecturing in bar review classes (B.M. 850, Rule 5, Sec. 2).
2. Non-participatory credit units:
a. Preparing, as author or co-author, written materials (e.g. article, book or book review)
which contribute to the legal education of the author member, which were not
prepared in the ordinary course of his practice or employment; and,
b. Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter (B.M. 850, Rule 5, Sec. 3).
EXEMPTIONS
(a) Parties EXEMPTED from the MCLE:
1. The President, Vice-President and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive

Departments;
2. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
3. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired
Justices and Judges, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent
court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial
education;
4. The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Dept. of
Justice;
5. The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;
6. The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate
Counsel;
7. The Chairman and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
8. The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and the
Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
9. Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
10. Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at
least 10 years in accredited law schools;
11. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professional and Professorial
Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; AND
12. Governors and Mayors. (B.M. 850, Rule 7, Sec. 1).
(b) Other Parties Exempted:
1. Those who are not in law practice, private or public; and,

2. Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors.
(B.M. 850, Rule 7, Sec. 2).
(c) Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement
A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as
physical disability, illness, post-graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from
compliance with or modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of time for
compliance, in accordance with procedure to be established by the Committee on MCLE. (B.M.
850, Rule 7, Sec. 3).
(d) Proof of Exemption
Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE requirement shall be:
1. Under oath; and
2. Supported by documents. (B.M. 850, Rule 7, Sec. 5).
SANCTIONS
Non-Compliance Procedures: (RARE-NO)
(a) What constitutes non-compliance:
1. Failure to complete education requirement within the compliance period;

2. Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
3. Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within
60 days from receipt of non-compliance notice;
4. Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt status)
within the prescribed period;
5. Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period; OR
6. Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or
evade compliance with the MCLE requirements. (B.M. 850, Rule 12, Sec. 1).
(b) Members failing to comply will:
1. Receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific deficiency; AND

2. Be given 60 days from date of notification to file a Response (B.M. 850, Rule 12, Sec. 2).
(c) Consequences of Non-Compliance:
1. Listed as delinquent member by the IBP Board of Governors upon recommendation of the
Committee on MCLE;
2. The listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature but shall be made with notice
and hearing by the Committee on MCLE.
3. The lawyer will be subject to penalties and disciplinary sanctions;
4. The lawyer will be fined P2,000.00 for the first offense, P3,000.00 for the second offense
and P4,000.00 for the third offense;
5. The lawyer may be listed as a delinquent member of the Bar;
6. The non-compliant lawyer shall be discharged from the case and the client/s shall be
allowed to secure the services of a new counsel with the concomitant right to demand the
return of fees already paid to the non-compliant lawyer.
7. Note that the failure to indicate the MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of
Exemption in pleadings will no longer cause the dismissal of the case or the expunction of
pleadings from the records (OCA CIRCULAR NO. 79-14, 2014).
Committee on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education:
1. Composition:
a. Retired Justice of the SC – Chairman, nominated by the Supreme Court
b. IBP National President – Vice-Chair
c. 3 other members – Nominated by the Philippine Judicial Academy, UP Law Center
and Association of Law Professors, respectively.
2. Members are of proven probity and integrity.
3. Compensation as may be determined by the SC.
4. The initial terms of each of the 3 members shall be 5, 4 and 3 years respectively (B.M. 850,
Rule 15).
RULES ON COMMUNITY LEGAL AID SERVICE ( A.M. NO. 17-03-09-SC)
Q1: What is the rationale behind the Community Legal Aid Service Rule?
A: The legal profession is imbued with public interest. As such, lawyers are charged with the
duty to give meaning to the guarantee of access to adequate legal assistance under Article III,
Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution by making their legal services available to the public in an
efficient and convenient manner compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness
of the profession. As a way to discharge this constitutional duty, lawyers are obliged to render
pro bono services to those who otherwise would be denied access to adequate legal
services. ( Rule on Community Legal Aid and Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, Section 2)
Q2: Who are the covered lawyers under this rule?
A: Covered lawyers shall refer to those who have successfully passed the Annual Bar
Examinations and have signed the Roll of Attorneys for that particular year. It shall include
lawyers who will pass the 2017 Bar Examinations and are admitted to the Bar in 2018. (Rule on
Community Legal Aid and Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, Section 4(a))
Q3: What does Pro Bono Legal Aid Service mean?
A: It shall refer to supervised post-admission legal services in civil, criminal and administrative
cases consisting of legal services provided without charge to:
1. Indigent party or pauper litigants
2. Other persons of limited means
3. Individuals, groups, or organizations rendered unable to secure free legal assistance by
reason of conflict of interest on the part of the government provided legal assistance through
the Public Attorney’s Office
4. Public Interest cases that have societal impact and involves a group or sector of society that
would not be capable of securing legal assistance by reason of ability of other lawyers
including the Public Attorney’s Office
Q4: What shall be considered legal services under this Rule?

A:
1.Representation of qualified litigants
2. Legal Counseling
3. Developmental Legal Assistance
4. Legal Services provided as part of employment in the government provided that the lawyer
must already be in government service for at least 6 moths
5. Legal Services provided to marginalised sectors
Q5: What are the required number of hours?
A: Covered lawyers are required to render 120 hours of pro bono legal services to qualified
parties within the first year of the lawyer’s admission to Bar, counted from the time they sign the
roll of Attorneys (Rule on Community Legal Aid and Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, Section 5
(a))
Q6: Can covered lawyers comply with the required hours during weekends?
A: Yes. Upon written request approved by the chairperson of the IBP Chapter Legal Aid
Committee or by the authorized representative of the Accredited Legal Aid Service Provided,
covered lawyers may comply with the requirements of this Rule on weekends. ( Rule on
Community Legal Aid and Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, Section 5(b))
Q7: Who may be considered exempt from this rule?
A:
1. Lawyers in the executive and legislative branch of government provided that the lawyer
must already be in government service at least six (6) months before admission into the Bar
5. Lawyers in the Judiciary are automatically exempt
6. Those who have already undergone and completed the clinical legal education program
(CLED) under Rule 138-A
7. Covered lawyers who have worked for at least one (1) year in law firms offering pro bono
legal services or regularly accepting counsel de officio appointments
8. Covered lawyers who have previously worked for more than one (1) year as staff of a Law
School Legal Aid Office, a public interest law group, or an alternative developmental law
group
9. Covered lawyers who have worked with lawyers for Public Interest Law Groups for more
than one (1) year and have filed public interest cases
( Rule on Community Legal Aid and Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, Section 5(c))
Q8: How do those exempted from the rule avail of such exemption?
A: Within 30 days from the date of signing the Roll of Attorneys, an exempt lawyer shall submit
his/her sworn statement and that of the chairperson or director or supervising partner or lawyer
of the Accredited Legal Aid Service showing his/her entitlement to the exemption from the rule,
otherwise the new lawyer shall not be considered exempt. (Rule on Community Legal Aid and
Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, Section 5)
Q9: How is compliance monitored by the IBP?
A: The IBP Chapter Legal Aid Committee shall keep a record of the time/hours spent by new
lawyers in rendering free legal aid services to qualified parties or litigants.Time spent in the
office or at the place designated by the IBP Legal Aid Committee regardless of whether there
are clients or not, shall also be recorded and included int he computation of the hours spent.
( Rule on Community Legal Aid and Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, Section 5 (f))
Q10: What is issued to covered lawyers after completion of the required hours?
A: A Certificate of compliance which shall be presented to the Office of the Bar Confidant which
states that the covered lawyers has completed the required one hundred twenty (120) hours of
free legal aid services ( Rule on Community Legal Aid and Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC,
Section 5(g))
Q11: How long does a covered lawyer have to comply with the required hours?
A: Covered lawyers shall complete the community legal aid service within 12 months form the
date they sign the Roll of Attorneys. Within one month after the lapse of the said period, covered
lawyers shall submit the Certificate of Compliance to the OBC ( Rule on Community Legal Aid
and Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, Section 6, par 1.)
Q12: Can this 12 month period be extended?
A: Yes. It may be extended upon a petition duly submitted and granted by the Bar Confidant
who will then furnish a copy to the Chief justice to resolve such petition. This petition must be
filed before the lapse of the period of compliance.
Q13: What happens to cases handed by covered lawyers after the period of compliance
has been completed?
A: The covered lawyer may choose to continue the case or, should the covered lawyer upon
compliance be unable to continue representation by reason of professional conflict of interest
arising from employment, he may turn over the case to the IBP Chapter Legal Aid Committee or
the Accredited Legal Aid Service Provider, indicating clearly the reason for the turnover. The
case is then reassigned to another covered lawyer. ( Rule on Community Legal Aid and
Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, Section 7 par. 2)
Q14: What is the rule on the solicitation or acceptance of gifts by covered lawyers?
A: Covered lawyers are absolutely prohibited from receiving any fee, gift, token or gratitude or
anything of monetary value in the course of rendering the service. ( Rule on Community Legal
Aid and Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, Section 8)
Q15: Can compliance with this rule be credited to MCLE Units?
A: Yes. A covered lawyers who successfully complies with the requirements of this Rule shall be
given a full credit of thirty-six (36) MCLE unites for the three year-period covered by a
compliance period under the Rules on MCLE. ( Rule on Community Legal Aid and Service,
A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, Section 10)
Q16: What are the penalties for non compliance with this rule?
A: Covered layers must show cause in writing within ten days from receipt of notice why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him/her. Should the OBC find the lawyer;s
explanation insufficient to justify non-compliance, it shall recommend to the Supreme Court that
the lawyer be delisted as a member in good standing o fate Bar. ( Rule on Community Legal Aid
and Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, Section 14(a))
Q17: What is the consequence of falsifying a Certificate of Compliance?
A. Without prejudice to criminal liability, a covered lawyer who falsifies the Certificate of
Compliance required, shall be administratively charged by the OBC with disciplinary action up to
and including disbarment. ( Rule on Community Legal Aid and Service, A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC,
Section 14 (b))
BAR MATTER 2012, RULE ON MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE
(a) Purpose: to enhance the duty of lawyers to society as agents of social change and to the
courts by helping improve access to jstice by the less privileged members of society and
expedite resolution of cases involving them
(b) Scope
1. Covers the mandatory requirement for practicing lawyers to render free legal aid services in
all cases (civil, criminal or administrative) involving indigent and pauper litigants
2. Governs the duty of other members of the legal profession to support the legal aid program
of the IBP.
(c) Definitions
1. Practicing lawyers – members of the Philippine Bar who appear for and in behalf of parties
in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies. The term excludes the following:
a. Government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to
practice (Section 4[a][i]);
b. Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court (Id.);
c. Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice in duly accredited
legal clinics of law schools and lawyers of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
and peoples’ organizations (POs) like the Free Legal Assistance Group who by the
nature of their work already render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants (Id.);
d. Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (i) to (iii) including those who are
employed in the private sector but do not appear for and in behalf of parties in courts
of law and quasi-judicial agencies (Section 4[a][v]);
2. Indigent and pauper litigants (Rule 141, Section 19, ROC);
3. Legal aid cases – actions, disputes, and controversies that are criminal, civil and
administrative in nature in whatever stage where indigent and pauper litigants need legal
representation;
4. Free legal aid services – appearance in court or quasi-judicial body for and in behalf of an
indigent or pauper litigant and the preparation of pleadings or motions. It also covers
assistance by a practicing lawyer to indigent or poor litigants in court-annexed mediation
and in other modes of alternative dispute resolution. Services rendered when a practicing
lawyer is appointed counsel de officio shall also be considered as free legal aid services and
credited;
5. National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) – the committee of the IBP which is specifically
tasked with handling legal aid cases; and,
6. Clerk of Court – the Clerk of Court of the court where the practicing lawyer rendered free
legal aid services. In the case of quasi-judicial bodies, it refers to an officer holding an
equivalent or similar position. The term shall also include an officer holding a similar position
in agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, or a responsible officer of an accredited PO
or NGO, or an accredited mediator who conducted the court-annexed mediation proceeding.
(d) Requirements
1. Every practicing lawyer is required to render a minimum of 60 hours of free legal aid
services to indigent litigants in a year. Said 60 hours shall be spread within a period of
twelve (12) months, with a minimum of five (5) hours of free legal aid services each month.
However, where it is necessary for the practicing lawyer to render legal aid service for more
than five (5) hours in one month, the excess hours may be credited to the said lawyer for the
succeeding periods.
2. A practicing lawyer shall coordinate with the Clerk of Court/IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the
IBP Chapter for cases where he may render free legal aid service.
3. The practicing lawyer shall report compliance with the requirement within ten (10) days of
the last month of each quarter of the year.
4. A practicing lawyer shall be required to secure and obtain a certificate from the Clerk of
Court attesting to the number of hours spent rendering free legal aid services in a case. The
certificate shall contain the following information:
a. The case or cases where the legal aid service was rendered, the party or parties in
the said case/s for whom the service was rendered, the docket number of the said
case/s and the date/s the service was rendered.
b. The number of hours actually spent attending a hearing or conducting trial on a
particular case in the court or quasi-judicial body.
c. The number of hours actually spent attending mediation, conciliation or any other
mode of ADR on a particular case.
d. A motion (except a motion for extension of time to file a pleading or for
postponement of hearing or conference) or pleading filed on a particular case shall
be considered as one (1) hour of service.
5. The Clerk of Court shall issue the certificate in triplicate, one (1) copy to be retained by the
practicing lawyer, one (1) copy to be retained by the Clerk of Court and one (1) copy to be
attached to the lawyer’s compliance report.
6. The compliance report shall be submitted to the Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter
within the court’s jurisdiction. The Legal Aid Chairperson shall then be tasked with
immediately verifying the contents of the certificate with the issuing Clerk of Court by
comparing the copy of the certificate attached to the compliance report with the copy
retained by the Clerk of Court.
7. The IBP Chapter shall, after verification, issue a compliance certificate to the concerned
lawyer. The IBP Chapter shall also submit the compliance reports to the IBP’s NCLA for
recording and documentation. The submission shall be made within forty-five (45) days after
the mandatory submission of compliance reports by the practicing lawyers.
8. Practicing lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial
bodies the number and date of issue of their certificate of compliance for the immediately
preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would cause the
dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records. (Section 5[e])
9. Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under Section 4(a)(i)
and (ii), shall fill up a form prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that year, they
are employed with the government or incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to
practice or lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court. The form shall be sworn
to and submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office together with the payment of an
annual contribution of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000). Said contribution shall accrue to a
special fund of the IBP for the support of its legal aid program.
10. Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under Section 4(a)(iii)
shall secure a certification from the director of the legal clinic or of the concerned NGO or
PO to the effect that, during that year, they have served as supervising lawyers in a legal
clinic or actively participated in the NGO’s or PO’s free legal aid activities. The certification
shall be submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office. (Section 5(g))
11. Before the end of a particular year, lawyers covered by the category under Section 4(a)(iv)
shall fill up a form prepared by the NCLA which states that, during that year, they are neither
practicing lawyers nor covered by Section (4)(a)(i) to (iii). The form shall be sworn to and
submitted to the IBP Chapter or IBP National Office together with the payment of an annual
contribution of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000) by way of support for the efforts of practicing
lawyers who render mandatory free legal aid services. Said contribution shall accrue to a
special fund of the IBP for the support of its legal aid program.
12. Failure to pay the annual contribution shall subject the lawyer to a penalty of Two Thousand
Pesos (P2,000) for that year which amount shall also accrue to the special fund for the legal
aid program of the IBP.
(e) The National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA)
1. Shall coordinate with the various legal aid committees of the IBP local chapters for the
proper handling and accounting of legal aid cases which practicing lawyers can represent;
2. Shall monitor the activities of the Chapter of the Legal Aid Office with respect to the
coordination with Clerks of Court on legal aid cases and the collation of certificates
submitted by practicing lawyers;
3. Shall act as the national repository of records in compliance with this Rule;
4. Shall prepare the following forms: certificate to be issued by the Clerk of Court and forms
mentioned in Section 5(e) and (g); and,
5. Shall hold in trust, manage and utilize the contributions and penalties that will be paid by
lawyers pursuant to this Rule to effectively carry out the provisions of this Rule. For this
purpose, it shall annually submit an accounting to the IBP Board of Governors. The
accounting shall be included by the IBP in its report to the Supreme Court in connection with
its request for the release of the subsidy for its legal aid program.
(f) Penalties
1. At the end of every calendar year, any practicing lawyer who fails to meet the minimum
prescribed 60 hours of legal aid service each year shall be required by the IBP, through the
NCLA, to explain why he was unable to render the minimum prescribed number of hours.
a. If no explanation has been given or if the NCLA finds the explanation unsatisfactory,
the NCLA shall make a report and recommendation to the IBP Board of Governors
that the erring lawyer be declared a member of the IBP who is not in good standing.
Upon approval of the NCLA’s recommendation, the IBP Board of Governors shall
declare the erring lawyer as a member not in good standing. Notice thereof shall be
furnished the erring lawyer and the IBP Chapter which submitted the lawyer’s
compliance report or the IBP Chapter where the lawyer is registered, in case he did
not submit a compliance report. The notice to the lawyer shall include a directive to
pay P4,000 penalty which shall accrue to the special fund for the legal aid program of
the IBP.
2. The “not in good standing” declaration shall be effective for a period of 3 months from the
receipt of the erring lawyer of the notice from the IBP Board of Governors.
a. During the said period, the lawyer cannot appear in court or any quasi-judicial body
as counsel. Provided, however, that the “not in good standing” status shall subsist
even after the lapse of the three-month period until and unless the penalty shall have
been paid.
3. Any lawyer who fails to comply with his duties under this Rule for at least 3 consecutive
years shall be the subject of disciplinary proceedings to be instituted motu proprio by the
CBD. The said proceedings shall afford the erring lawyer due process in accordance with
the rules of the CBD and Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. If found administratively liable,
the penalty of suspension in the practice of law for 1 year shall be imposed upon him.
4. Any lawyer who falsifies a certificate or any form required to be submitted under this Rule or
any contents thereof shall be administratively charged with falsification and dishonesty and
shall be subject to disciplinary action by the CBD. This is without prejudice to the filing of
criminal charges against the lawyer.
5. The falsification of a certificate or any contents thereof by any Clerk of Court or by any
Chairperson of the Legal Aid Committee of the IBP local chapter where the case is pending
or by the Director of a legal clinic or responsible officer of an NGO or PO shall be a ground
for an administrative case against the said Clerk of Court or Chairperson. This is without
prejudice to the filing of the criminal and administrative charges against the malfeasor.
(g) Credit for MCLE
1. A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the required number of hours in a year
for the three year-period covered by a compliance period shall be credited the following:
 2 credit units for legal ethics
 2 credit units for trial and pretrial skills
 2 credit units for alternative dispute resolution
 4 credit units for legal writing and oral advocacy
 4 credit units for substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence
 6 credit units for such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee under
Section 2(g), Rule 2 of the Rules on MCLE
2. A lawyer who renders mandatory legal aid service for the required number of hours in a year
for at least two consecutive years within the three year-period covered by a compliance
period under the Rules on MCLE shall be credited the following:
 1 credit unit for legal ethics
 1 credit unit for trial and pretrial skills

 1 credit unit for alternative dispute resolution
 2 credit units for legal writing and oral advocacy
 2 credit units for substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence
 3 credit units for such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee under
Section 2(g), Rule 2 of the Rules on MCLE.
END OF TOPIC
NOTARIAL PRACTICE
F. Notarial Practice
1. Qualifications of Notary Public
2. Term of Office of Notary Public
3. Powers and Limitations
4. Notarial Register
5. Jurisdiction of Notary Public
and Place of Notarization
6. Revocation of Commission
7. Competent Evidence of Identity
8. Sanctions
QUALIFICATIONS (F21- GOOD MORAL RESIDENT)
1. Filipino citizen
2. Over twenty-one (21) years of age
3. A member of the Philippine Bar in Good standing with clearances from the Office of the Bar
Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
4. Must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving Moral turpitude
5. A Resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and maintains a regular place of work
or business in the city or province where the commission is to be issued (Rule III, Section 1,
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice [hereinafter Notarial Law]).
Term of Office of Notary Public
Term of office: A notary public may perform notarial acts for a period of 2 years commencing
the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier
revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court (Rule III,
Section 11, Notarial Law).
(a) Missing, Lost or Damaged Seal
After informing the appropriate law enforcement agency, shall notify the Executive Judge in
writing, providing proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail, and in the event
of a crime committed, provide a copy or entry number of the appropriate police record. Upon
receipt of such notice, if found in order by the Executive Judge, the latter shall order the notary
public to cause notice of such loss or damage to be published, once a week for 3 consecutive
weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or province where the notary public is
commissioned. Thereafter, the Executive Judge shall issue to the notary public a new
Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. (Notarial Law, Rule VII Section
[(d]).
In the event that the “missing, lost or damaged seal is later found or surrendered,” it shall be
delivered by the notary public to the Executive Judge to be disposed of as provided above.
Failure to effect such surrender shall constitute contempt of court (Notarial Law, Rule VII
Section 2[e]).
(b) Death, Resignation, Revocation or Expiration
Within five (5) days after the “death or resignation” of the notary public, or the “revocation or
expiration of a notarial commission,” the official seal shall be surrendered to the Executive
Judge and shall be destroyed or defaced in public during office hours. In the event of death of
the notary public, the person in possession of the official seal shall have the duty to surrender it
to the Executive Judge (Rule VII Section 2[e], Notarial Law).
(c) Power of the Municipal Trial Court Judges and Municipal Circuit Trial Court
Judges to Act as Notaries Public Ex Officio
General Rule: MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio in the notarization
of documents “connected only with the exercise of their official functions and duties.” They may
not, as notaries public ex officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private
documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances which bear no direct relation to the
performance of their functions as judges. (OCA Circular No. 1-90, dated February 26, 1990).
Exception: However, the Supreme Court, taking judicial notice of the fact that there are still
municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries public, has ruled that MTC and MCTC
judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public may, in the
capacity as notaries public ex officio, perform any act within the competency of a regular notary
public, provided that:
 all notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the
municipal treasurer; and,
 a certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or
notary public in such municipality or circuit. (Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90, February
26, 1990).
A judge cannot execute an affidavit of cohabitation. Affidavits of cohabitation are documents

not connected with the judge's official function and duty to solemnize marriages. Notarizing
affidavits of cohabitation is inconsistent with the duty to examine the parties' requirements
for marriage. If the solemnizing officer notarized the affidavit of cohabitation, he cannot
objectively examine and review the affidavit's statements before performing the marriage
ceremony. Should there be any irregularity or false statements in the affidavit of cohabitation he
notarized, he cannot be expected to admit that he solemnized the marriage despite the
irregularity or false allegation. Thus, judges cannot notarize the affidavits of cohabitation of the
parties whose marriage they will solemnize. Affidavits of cohabitation are documents not
connected with their official function and duty to solemnize marriages (Tupal v. Rojo, A.M. No.
MTJ-14-1842, 2014).
A judge is also required to have the parties present competent evidence of identity. That the
parties appeared before him and that he interviewed them do not make the parties personally
known to him. To personally know the parties, the notary public must at least be acquainted with
them. Interviewing the contracting parties does not make the parties personally known to the
notary public (Id.).
(d) Renewal of Notarial Commission
A notarial commission may be renewed by filing a written application with the Executive Judge
within 45 days before the expiration thereof. A mark, image or impression of the seal of the
notary public shall be attached to the application.
Failure to file said application will result in the deletion of the name of the notary public in the
register of notaries public.
The notary public thus removed from the Register of Notaries Public may only be reinstated
therein after he is issued a new commission in accordance with these Rules (Rule III, Section
13, Notarial Law).
The Executive Judge shall act on an application for the renewal of a commission within 30 days
from receipt thereof. If the application is denied, the Executive Judge shall state the reasons
therefor. (Rule III Section 14, Notarial Law).
SAMPLE PROBLEM
Q: Mr. X was commissioned as a notary public on December 15, 2013. When will Mr. X’s
term of office as a notary public expire?
A: Mr. X’s term of office will expire on December 31, 2014. This is because the effectivity of the
notarial commission issued on December 31, 2013 retroacted to January 1, 2013. Therefore,
the first year of the notary public’s commission expired on December 31, 2013 (first year:
January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013) and the second year of the notary public’s commission
will expire on December 31, 2014 (second year: January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014).
A notary public’s term of office is two years from January 1 of the year in which his/her notarial
commission was issued (unless the notarial commission is earlier revoked, and/or unless the
notary public resigns as such before the lapse of this period).
The law that governed notaries public prior to the effectivity of the 2004 Notarial Rules was Act
2711, or the Administrative Code of 1917. Under Section 239 of Act 2711, the term of notaries
public was also two years from January 1 of the year in which the appointment was made. Thus,
assuming that notarial commission was issued on July 31, 2004 (or one day before the
effectivity of the 2004 Notarial Rules on August 1, 2004), that January 1, 2004 to December 31,
2004; second year: January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005).
Notaries public commissioned prior to the effectivity of the 2004 Notarial Rules on August 1,
2004 were not ipso facto stripped of their authority to perform notarial acts. Instead, on
November 25, 2004, the Supreme Court promulgated Memorandum Order No. 75-04, which
states that “Notaries Public commissioned prior to 1 August 2004 can continue with their work
until the expiration of their commission”.
POWERS AND LIMITATIONS
Powers
A notary public has the power to perform the following notarial acts: (A-JOSCO)
1. Acknowledgments;
2. Jurats;
3. Oaths and affirmations;
4. Signature witnessings
5. Copy certifications; and
6. Any Other act authorized by the 2004 Notarial Rules (Rule IV, Section 1, Notarial Law).
An acknowledgment refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

1. appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument
or document;
2. is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by [the 2004 Notarial Rules]; and
3. represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was
voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares
that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed,
and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that
capacity (Rule II, Section 1, Notarial Law).
An oath or affirmation refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

1. appears in person before the notary public;
2. is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by the 2004 Notarial Rules; and,
3. avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument or document
(Rule II, Section 2, Notarial Law).
A jurat refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
1. appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;
evidence of identity as defined by the 2004 Notarial Rules;
3. signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
4. takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.
(Rule II, Section 6, Notarial Law).
A signature witnessing refers to a notarial act in which an individual on a single occasion:

evidence of identity as defined by [the 2004 Notarial Rules]; and,
3. signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary public (Rule II, Section 14,
Notarial Law).
A copy certification refers to a notarial act in which a notary public:

1. is presented with an instrument or document that is neither a vital record, a public record,
nor publicly recordable;
2. copies or supervises the copying of the instrument or document;
3. compares the instrument or document with the copy; and
4. determines that the copy is accurate and complete (Rule II, Section 4, Notarial Law).
The phrase any other act authorized by the 2004 Notarial Rules refers to the authority of
notaries public to perform the following acts:
1. To certify the affixing of a thumb or other mark on an instrument or document presented for
notarization; and
2. To sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make a mark on an
instrument or document (Rule IV, Sections 1(b) and (c), Notarial Law).
A notary public may certify the affixing of a thumb or other mark on an instrument or
document presented for notarization, provided:
1. the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public and of two
disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;
2. both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark;
3. the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other Mark affixed by
(name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and
undersigned notary public"; and
4. the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through an
acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing (Rule IV Section 1[b], Notarial Law).
SAMPLE PROBLEM
Q: May a notary public notarize documents by affixing his thumb or other mark on the
notarial certificate?
A: It appears that he may not. This is because Rule VIII, Section 1 of the 2004 Notarial Rules
provides that in notarizing a paper instrument or document, a notary public shall:
a) sign by hand on the notarial certificate only the name indicated and as appearing on the
notary's commission;
b) not sign using a facsimile stamp or printing device; and,
c) affix his official signature only at the time the notarial act is performed.
A notary public may sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make a
mark on an instrument or document provided:
a. the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his
behalf;
b. the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two disinterested and
unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;
c. both witnesses sign their own names;
d. the notary public writes below his signature: "Signature affixed by notary in presence of
(names and addresses of person and two [2] witnesses)"; and,
e. the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat (Rule IV Section 1[c],
Notarial Law).
SAMPLE PROBLEM
Q: A notary public signed a contract of lease on behalf of another without complying with
the foregoing requisites. He then notarized the lease contract. Is this allowable?
A: No. None of the requirements contained in Rule IV, Sec. 1(c), as would justify a notary
signing in behalf of a contracting party, was complied with in this case. Moreover, [the notary
public’s] act of affixing his signature above the printed name "Edwin T. Nevada," without any
qualification, “veritably made him a party to the contract of lease in question.” Thus, his act of
notarizing a deed to which he is a party is a plain violation of the aforequoted Rule IV,
Sec. 3(a) of the Notarial Rules, for which he can be disciplinarily sanctioned provided
under Rule XI, Sec. 1(b)(10) of the Notarial Rules (Nevada v. Casuga, A.C. No. 7591, 2012).
Limitations
A notary public may not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the
instrument or document is:
1. not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
2. not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity (Rule IV, Section 2[b], Notarial Law);
3. a relative within the fourth civil degree of affinity. This prohibition includes the spouse,
common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the
principal within the fourth civil degree.
(a) Places Where Notaries Public Can Perform Notarial Acts

Generally, a notary public may perform notarial acts in his regular place of work or business,
which must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. However, a
notary public may perform a notarial act outside his place of work or business in any of the
following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction (HOF-D):
1. Public offices, convention halls and similar places where oaths of office may be
administered;
2. Public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments or
documents requiring notarization;
3. Hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or document is
confined for treatment; and,
4. Any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is under
detention (Nasayao v. Unay, A.C. No. 9504, 2013).
The act of notarizing documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by the
notarial commission partakes of malpractice of law and falsification (Almazan, Sr. v. Suerte-
Felipe, A.C. No. 7184, 2014).
(b) Grounds for Disqualification from Performing Notarial Acts
General Rule: A notary public may perform notarial acts for any person.
Exceptions: A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he:

1. is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized;
2. will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title,
interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by the 2004 Notarial
Rules and by law; or
3. is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or
consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree (Rule IV, Section 3, Notarial
Law).
The Supreme Court has held that it was improper for a notary public to notarize a complaint-
affidavit executed by his two sisters-in-law based on Rule IV, Section 3 of the 2004 Notarial
Rules (Jandoquile v. Revilla, A.C. No. 9514, 2013).
The Supreme Court has declared that a Community Tax Certificate is not competent
evidence of identity. However, note that Section 163(a) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991 requires persons subject to the payment of
community tax to present their community tax certificates whenever they acknowledge
documents before notaries public (Baylon v. Almo, A.C. No. 6962, 2008).
(c) Refusal to Perform Notarial Acts.
General Rule: A notary public may not refuse to perform a notarial act.
Exceptions: A notary public may refuse to perform a notarial act if:

1. the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is
unlawful or immoral;
2. the signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in the mind of the notary public
reasonable doubt as to the former's knowledge of the consequences of the transaction
requiring a notarial act; and
3. in the notary's judgment, the signatory is not acting of his or her own free will (Rule IV,
Sec 4, Notarial Law).
SAMPLE PROBLEM
Q: A notary public notarized a deed of sale of real property where the stated price was P1
million. He then notarized a second deed for the same transaction which reflected a price of
only P250,000.00, after the parties to the sale expressed their desire to reduce the amount of
taxes payable in connection with the sale.
According to the notary, he was "moved by his humane and compassionate disposition" when
he acceded to the parties' plea that he prepare and notarize the second deed with a lower
consideration in order to reduce the corresponding tax liability. Was this a violation of the
notarial rules?
A: Yes, by knowingly notarizing a document with an illegal purpose. While respondent's

duty as a notary public is principally to ascertain the identity of the affiant and the voluntariness
of the declaration, it is nevertheless incumbent upon him to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its consummation. Rule IV, Section 4 of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in fact proscribes notaries public from performing any notarial
act for transactions similar to the herein document of sale, to wit:
In this case, respondent proceeded to notarize the second deed despite knowledge of its illegal
purpose.” Respondent should have been more prudent and remained steadfast in his solemn
oath not to commit falsehood nor consent to the doing of any. As a lawyer, respondent is
expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from
any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the
integrity of the legal profession (Caalim-Verzonilla v. Pascua, A.C. No. 6655, 2011, En Banc).
(d) False or Incomplete Certificates.
A notary public shall not:

1. execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the notary to be false.
2. affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete (Notarial law,
Rule IV, Sec 5).
A notarial certificate refers to the part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document
that is completed by the notary public, bears the notary's signature and seal, and states the
facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization as provided for by these Rules
(Rule II Section 8, Notarial Law).
The notarial certificate must contain the following:
1. Name of the notary public as exactly indicated in the commission;

2. Serial number of the commission of the notary public;
3. Words "Notary Public" and the province or city where the notary public is commissioned, the
expiration date of the commission, the office address of the notary public; and
4. Roll of attorney’s number, the professional tax receipt number and the place and date of
issuance thereof, and the IBP membership number (Rule VIII, Section 2, Notarial Law).
 The “Roll of Attorney’s number” is a permanently-assigned number to each lawyer.
 The “Professional Tax Receipt (“PTR”) Number” is subject to renewal every year. A
PTR Number issued in a year is valid until January 31 of the succeeding year (Local
Government Code of 1991, Section 139(d)).
 If the notary public is an IBP Lifetime Member, simply indicate his or her IBP Lifetime
Membership number. If the notary public is not an IBP Lifetime Member, he/she
must indicate the “number and date of the official receipt indicating payment of
his/her annual membership dues to the IBP.” An IBP official receipt issued in one
year may be availed of and indicated in all pleadings, motions, and papers “until the
end of February of the succeeding year.” (OCA Circular No. 10-85, issued on July
24, 1985)
(e) Improper Instruments or Documents
A notary public shall not notarize:

1. a blank or incomplete instrument or document; or,
2. an instrument or document without appropriate notarial certification (Rule IV, Section 6,
Notarial Law).
Fees
1. For performing a notarial act, a notary public may charge the maximum fee as prescribed
by the Supreme Court unless he waives the fee in whole or in part
2. No fee or compensation of any kind, except those expressly prescribed and allowed herein,
shall be collected or received for any notarial service.
3. A notary public shall not require payment of any fees specified herein prior to the
performance of a notarial act unless otherwise agreed upon.
4. A notary public who charges a fee for notarial services shall issue a receipt registered with
the Bureau of Internal Revenue and keep a journal of notarial fees. He shall enter in the
journal all fees charged for services rendered.
5. A notary public shall post in a conspicuous place in his office a complete schedule of
chargeable notarial fees (Rule V, Secs. 1-5, Notarial Law).
Change of Status of Notary Public

(a) Change of name and address

Within 10 days after the change of name of the notary public by court order or by marriage, or
after ceasing to maintain the regular place of work or business, the notary public shall submit a
signed and dated notice of such fact to the Executive Judge.
The notary public shall not notarize until:

1. he receives from the Executive Judge a confirmation of the new name of the notary public
and/or change of regular place of work or business; and,
2. a new seal bearing the new name has been obtained.
The foregoing notwithstanding, until the aforementioned steps have been completed, the notary
public may continue to use the former name or regular place of work or business in performing
notarial acts for 3 months from the date of the change, which may be extended once for valid
and just cause by the Executive Judge for another period not exceeding 3 months (Rule X, Sec.
1, Notarial Law).
A notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of name shall present to the vendor
or manufacturer a certified copy of the Confirmation of the Change of Name issued by the
Executive Judge (Rule VII, Section 4[d], Notarial Law).
(b) Resignation
A notary public may resign his commission by personally submitting a written, dated and
signed formal notice to the Executive Judge together with his notarial seal, notarial
register and records. Effective from the date indicated in the notice, he shall immediately
cease to perform notarial acts. In the event of his incapacity to personally appear, the
submission of the notice may be performed by his duly authorized representative (Rule X, Sec
2, Notarial Law).
The Executive Judge shall immediately order the Clerk of Court to post in a conspicuous place
in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court the names of notaries public who
have resigned their notarial commissions and the effective dates of their resignation (Rule X,
Sec. 3, Notarial Law).
Notarial Register
Required Entries in a Notarial Register:
1. Entry number and page number;

2. Date and time of day of the notarial act;
3. Type of notarial act;
4. Title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding;
5. Name and address of each principal;
6. Competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if the signatory is not
personally known to the notary;
7. Name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming the person's
identity;
8. Fee charged for the notarial act;
9. Address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's regular place of work
or business; and
10. Any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or of relevance
(Rule VI, Sec. 2[a], Notarial Law).
Procedure
1. If a notary public is unable to complete a notarial act, he or she must also record in
the notarial register the reasons and circumstances for not completing a notarial act
(Rule VI, Sec. 2 [b], Notarial Law).
2. When the instrument or document is a contract, the notary public shall keep an original
copy thereof as part of his records and enter in said records a brief description of the
substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with
number one in each calendar year. He shall also retain a duplicate original copy for the
Clerk of Court (Rule VI, Sec. 2 [d], Notarial Law).
3. The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall
also state on the instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same is
recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries (Rule VI, Sec. 2 [e], Notarial Law).
4. In case of a protest of any draft, bill of exchange or promissory note, the notary
public shall make a full and true record of all proceedings in relation thereto and shall
note therein whether the demand for the sum of money was made, by whom, when, and
where; whether he presented such draft, bill or note; whether notices were given, to
whom and in what manner; where the same was made, when and to whom and where
directed; and of every other fact touching the same (Rule VI, Sec. 2 [f], Notarial Law).
5. At the end of each week, the notary public shall certify in his notarial register the
number of instruments or documents executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or protested
before him; or if none, this certificate shall show this fact (Rule VI, Sec. 2 [g], Notarial
Law).
6. A certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument
acknowledged before the notary public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month
following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the responsibility of such
officer. If there is no entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement
to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein required (Rule VI, Sec. 2 [g], Notarial Law).
7. At the time of notarization, the notary's notarial register shall be signed or a thumb
or other mark affixed by each:
o Principal;
o Credible witness swearing or affirming to the identity of a principal; and,
o Witness to a signature by thumb or other mark, or to a signing by the notary
public on behalf of a person physically unable to sign (Rule VI, Sec. 3, Notarial
Law).
Inspection and Copying of Notarial Registers
“Any person” may inspect an entry in the notarial register, during regular business hours, and in
the notary public’s presence, provided:
1. the person's identity is personally known to the notary public or proven through
competent evidence of identity;
2. the person affixes a signature and thumb or other mark or other recognized identifier, in
the notarial register in a separate, dated entry;
3. the person specifies the month, year, type of instrument or document, and name of the
principal in the notarial act or acts sought; and
4. the person is shown only the entry or entries specified by him.
The notarial register may be examined by a “law enforcement officer” in the course of an official
investigation or by virtue of a court order.
If the notary public has a reasonable ground to believe that a person has a criminal intent or
wrongful motive in requesting information from the notarial register, the notary shall deny
access to any entry or entries therein (Rule VI, Sec. 4, Notarial Law).
A notary public shall record in the notarial register the circumstances of any request to
inspect or copy an entry in the notarial register, including the requester's name, address,
signature, thumbmark or other recognized identifier, and evidence of identity. The reasons for
refusal to allow inspection or copying of a journal entry shall also be recorded (Rule VI, Sec. 2
[c], Notarial Law).
Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial Register
In case the notarial register is stolen, lost, destroyed, damaged, or otherwise rendered unusable
or illegible as a record of notarial acts, the notary public shall, within ten (10) days after
informing the appropriate law enforcement agency in the case of theft or vandalism, notify the
Executive Judge by any means providing a proper receipt or acknowledgment, including

registered mail and also provide a copy or number of any pertinent police report.
Upon revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, or death of the notary public, the
notarial register and notarial records shall immediately be delivered to the office of the Executive
Judge (Rule VI, Sec. 5, Notarial Law).
Issuance of Certified True Copies.
The notary public shall supply a certified true copy of the notarial record, or any part thereof, to
any person applying for such copy upon payment of the legal fees (Rule VI, Sec. 6, Notarial
Law).
Office/s Where Notarial Registers May be Purchased
1. Notaries public who render legal and notarial services within the National Capital Judicial
Region shall secure their notarial registers from the Property Division, Office of the
Administrative Services of the Office of the Court Administrator.
2. Notaries public in other judicial regions shall secure their notarial registers from the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of the city or province
under the supervision of the Executive Judge who issued their respective notarial
commissions. However, they may also secure notarial registers from the Office of the
Court Administrator.
Notarial registers shall be available at P1,200.00 each, subject to adjustment depending on

printing and distribution costs. (OCA Circular No. 157-2006 dated November 16, 2006).
Printing of Notarial Registers
The Supreme Court Printing Office shall print the notarial registers. In the event the Printing
Office cannot meet the requirements of the Office of the Court Administrator, and subject to
Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), its implementing rules and
regulations, and existing Supreme Court issuances on procurement, the Court Administrator
may contract out the printing of notarial registers to the following printers in the following order:
1. UP Printing Services;
2. The National Printing Office; or
3. Private printing firm.
The OCA shall resort to the third option only if the first two printers cannot accommodate the
requirements of the Court. (OCA Circular No. 157-2006 dated November 16, 2006).
Jurisdiction of Notary Public and Place of Notarization
A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. (Rule III, Sec. 11, Notarial Law).
Revocation and Administrative SanctionsREVOCATION OF COMMISSION
(a) Grounds
1. Any ground on which an application for a commission may be denied (e.g., conviction at the
first instance of a crime involving moral turpitude);
2. Failure to keep a notarial register;
3. Failure to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial
acts;
4. Failure to send the copy of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first ten (10) days of
the month following;
5. Failure to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of his commission;
6. Failure to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the Executive Judge;
7. Failure to make his report, within a reasonable time, to the Executive Judge concerning the
performance of his duties, as may be required by the judge;
8. Failure to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act;
9. Failure to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence;
10. Executing a false or incomplete certificate;
11. Knowingly performing or failing to perform any other act prohibited or mandated by the 2004
Notarial Rules; and,
12. Committing any other dereliction or act which in the judgment of the Executive Judge
constitutes good cause for revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction
(Rule XI Secs. 1[a] and 1[b], Notarial Law).
(b) Procedure for Revocation
Proceedings for the revocation of a notarial commission and/or the imposition of administrative
sanctions upon notaries public may be initiated in two ways:
1. By a verified complaint filed by an interested, affected or aggrieved person (Rule XI,

Sec 1[c], Notarial Law);
2. Motu proprio, by the Executive Judge (Rule XI, Section 1(d), Notarial Law). The
Executive Judge shall at all times exercise supervision over notaries public and shall
closely monitor their activities (Rule XI, Sec. 2, Notarial Law).
In both cases, the notary public must file a verified answer to the complaint.
If the answer of the notary public is not satisfactory, the Executive Judge shall conduct a
summary hearing.
If the allegations of the complaint are not proven, the complaint shall be dismissed. If the
charges are duly established, the Executive Judge shall impose the appropriate administrative
sanctions.
In either case, the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for review.
Pending the appeal, an order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall be immediately executory,
unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court. (Rule XI, Sec 1[c], Notarial Law).
Publication of Revocations and Administrative Sanctions
The Executive Judge shall immediately order the Clerk of Court to post in a conspicuous place
in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court the names of notaries public who
have been administratively sanctioned or whose notarial commissions have been revoked.
(Rule XI, Sec. 3, Notarial Law)
Competent evidence of IdentityCOMPETENT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY
A Principal is the person appearing before a notary public whose act is the subject of
notarization. (Rule II, Sec. 10, Notarial Law).
If the Principal is “personally known to the notary public,” there is no need to require the
presentation of competent evidence of identity.
If the Principal is “not personally known to the notary public,” the notary must identify the
Principal through competent evidence of identity.
Competent Evidence of Identity refers to the identification of an individual based on:
1. At least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited to, passport, driver's
license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation
clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter's ID, Barangay certification, Government
Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth
card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID,
seaman's book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration,
government office ID, certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disable
Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and Development; or
2. The oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or
transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the
individual; or,
3. The oath or affirmation of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the
instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows
to the notary public documentary identification.
NOTE: To personally know the parties, the notary public must at least be acquainted with them.
Sanctions SANCTIONS
(a) Punishable Acts
The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of any person who:
1. knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a notary public;
2. knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the seal, notarial register, or official
records of a notary public; and
3. knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a notary public to commit official
misconduct.(Notarial Law, Rule XII, Sec 1).
The Executive Judge concerned shall submit semestral reports to the Supreme Court on
discipline and prosecution of notaries public.(Notarial Law, Rule XII, Sec 2).
The Importance and Effects of Notarization
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
Notarization converts a private document into a public document; thus, making that
document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is
by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the
public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and
appended to a private instrument (Linco v. Lacebal, A.C. No. 7241, 2011).
Consequences of Defective Notarization
General Rule: Defective notarization does not affect the validity of a contract. However, from
an evidentiary perspective, the defective notarization of a document prevents it from being
considered and admitted in evidence as a public document. It remains a private document that
must be authenticated as such in accordance with the Rules of Evidence (The Heirs of Sarili v.
Lagrosa, G.R. No. 193517, 2014).
Exception: In cases where the law requires notarization as a requisite for validity, the defective
notarization will render the contract or transaction void (Azuela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
122880, 2006).
a. Use of improperly obtained documents from the notarial register of a notary public in an
administrative case.
b. Documents which are improperly obtained from the notarial register of a notary public
and used as evidence against the latter is admissible. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Law
contain no provision declaring the inadmissibility of documents obtained in violation
thereof (De Jesus v. Sanchez-Malit, A.C. No. 6470, 2014).
Effect of a Notary Public’s Failure to Comply with the Requirements for Signing a
Document on Behalf of Another and Notarizing the Document
He becomes a party to the instrument, and is disqualified from notarizing it. The act of
notarizing a deed to which a notary public is a party is a violation of the Notarial Rules and is a
ground for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions (Nevada v. Casuga, A.C. No. 7591, 2012).
Examples:
i. Donation of immovable property
Article 749 of the Civil Code provides that the donation of immovable property must be in a
public (i.e., notarized) document in order to be valid.
The Supreme Court declared that a deed of donation of land was declared void for being
defectively notarized. (Unchuan v. Lozada, G.R. No. 172671, 2009).
ii. Notarial Wills
Article 806 of the Civil Code provides that wills must be acknowledged before a notary public by
the testator and his witnesses.
In Guerrero v. Bihis (G.R. No. 174144, 2007), a notary public commissioned for and in Caloocan
City notarized a will in Quezon City. The Supreme Court held that the notary public had no
authority to notarize documents in Quezon City, and therefore the will in this case was void for
being defectively- notarized.
Likewise, in Azuela v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 122880, 2006), the Supreme Court declared a
will void for, among other things, not being “acknowledged” before a notary public, even if it was
“subscribed and sworn to” before a notary public:
.
In lieu of an acknowledgment, the notary public, wrote "Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10
ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila." By no manner of contemplation can those
words be construed as an acknowledgment. “An acknowledgment is the act of one who has
executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or
deed. It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor actually declares to the notary
that the executor of a document has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own free act
and deed.”
“It might be possible to construe the averment as a jurat, even though it does not hew to the
usual language thereof. A jurat is that part of an affidavit where the notary certifies that before
him/her, the document was subscribed and sworn to by the executor.” Ordinarily, the language
of the jurat should avow that the document was subscribed and sworn before the notary public,
while in this case, the notary public averred that he himself "signed and notarized" the
document. Possibly though, the word "ninotario" or "notarized" encompasses the signing of and
swearing in of the executors of the document, which in this case would involve the decedent
and the instrumental witnesses.
“Yet even if we consider what was affixed by the notary public as a jurat, the will would
nonetheless remain invalid, as the express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be
"acknowledged", and not merely subscribed and sworn to.” The will does not present any
textual proof, much less one under oath, that the decedent and the instrumental witnesses
executed or signed the will as their own free act or deed. The acknowledgment made in a will
provides for another all-important legal safeguard against spurious wills or those made beyond
the free consent of the testator.
An acknowledgement is not an empty meaningless act. The acknowledgment coerces the

testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before an officer of the law that they had
executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed. Such declaration is under
oath and under pain of perjury, thus allowing for the criminal prosecution of persons who
participate in the execution of spurious wills, or those executed without the free consent of the
testator. It also provides a further degree of assurance that the testator is of certain mindset in
making the testamentary dispositions to those persons he/she had designated in the will.
It may not have been said before, but we can assert the rule, self-evident as it is under Article
806. “A notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and
the witnesses is fatally defective, even if it is subscribed and sworn to before a notary
public.”
Violations of the 2004 Notarial Rules may also constitute violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath
The “act of notarizing documents outside one's area of commission is not to be taken lightly.
Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it also “partakes
of malpractice of law and falsification. Notarizing documents with an expired commission is a
violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws,” more specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice. Since the public is deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it
“also amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood,” which the lawyer's oath proscribes.
“Notarizing documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of
Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and the lawyer's oath which unconditionally requires lawyers not to
do or declare any falsehood.” Finally, Atty. Quintana is personally accountable for the
documents that he admitted were “signed by his wife.” He cannot relieve himself of liability by
passing the blame to his wife. He is, thus, guilty of “violating Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the
unauthorized practice of law.” Laquindanum v. Quintana (A.C. No. 7036, 2009, En Banc)
A notary public is personally responsible for the correctness and completeness of the
entries in his/her notarial register. A notary public cannot escape liability for blaming the
incorrectness or incompleteness of the entries in his/her notarial register on his/her secretary.
(Agadan v. Kilaan, A.C. No. 9385, 2013).
A notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by
encouraging the separation of the spouses and extra-judicially dissolving the conjugal
partnership. Further, a notary public is personally responsible for the entries in his
notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the
blame on his secretaries or any member of his staff (Espinosa v. Omana, A.C. No. 9081,
2011).
END OF TOPIC
II. JUDICIAL ETHICS

A. SOURCES
1. New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-
05-01-SC)
2. Code of Judicial Conduct
B. QUALITIES
1.Independence
2.Integrity
3.Impartiality
4.Propriety
5.Equality
6.Competence and Diligence
A. SOURCES
1. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC)
Overview
JUDICIAL ETHICS: A branch of moral science which treats of the right and proper conduct and
behavior to be observed by all judges and magistrates in trying and deciding controversies
brought before them for adjudication which conduct and behavior must be demonstrative of
independence, integrity, impartiality, equality, propriety, competence and diligence (Agpalo,
Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2002).
COURT: A board or other tribunal which decides a litigation or contest (Hidalgo v. Manglapus,
64 O.G. 3189).
JUDGE: A public officer who, by virtue of his office, is clothed with judicial authority. A public
officer lawfully appointed to decide litigated questions in accordance with the law (People v.
Manantan, G.R. No. 14129, 1962).
DE JURE JUDGE: An officer of the law fully vested with all of the powers and functions
conceded under the law to a judge, which relate to the administration of justice within the
jurisdiction over which he presides (Lino Luna v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-12647, 1917).
A judge who is in all respects legally appointed and qualified as such and whose term of office
has not expired (Tayko v. Capistrano, 53 Phil. 872, 1998).
DE FACTO JUDGE: A judge who in good faith continues and is recognized by common error
after the abolition of his court by statute is deemed judge de facto of the new court which
succeeds to the jurisdiction of that presided over by him (US v. Abalos, 1 Phil. 76, 1901). An
officer who is not fully vested with all of the powers and duties conceded to judges, but is
exercising the office under some color or right (Lino Luna v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-12647,
1917). The acts of a de facto judge are just as valid for all purposes as those of a de jure judge
in so far as the public or 3rd persons who are interested therein are concerned. The decision of a
de facto judge cannot be collaterally attacked (Nacionalista Party v. De Vera, G.R. No. L-3474,
1949).
The New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary was promulgated on April 27,
2004 and became effective on June 1, 2004.
Universal Intendment
The “Bangalore Draft,” as amended, is intended to be a Universal Declaration of Judicial

Standards applicable in all judiciaries. It is founded on the following principles:
1. A competent, independent and impartial judiciary is essential if the courts are to fulfill their
role in upholding constitutionalism and the rule of law;
2. 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;
3. 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.
A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC did not completely repeal the old Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted in
the Philippines and Code of Judicial Conduct of 1989. It is only when the New Code (inspired by
the Bangalore Draft) has specific provisions or concepts covering those found in the Canons of
Judicial Ethics and Code of Judicial Conduct that the latter are considered superseded to that
extent. This means that the provisions of the existing Canons and the Code which have not
been embraced in the New Code will not be considered subsisting and effective.
Significance
The New Code correlates the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics and
stresses the Philippines’ solidarity with the universal clamor for a universal code of judicial
ethics.
A creed to which a judge is hidebound, in the words of the Preamble of the Canons of
Professional Ethics, is that “the future of the Republic, to a great extent, depends upon our
maintenance of justice pure and unsullied.” (Luque v. Kayanan, G.R. No. L-26826, 1969).
If the administration of justice is liberated from ethical and moral rules, and is left free-wheeling,
judges and magistrates cannot be expected to be free, independent, honest, diligent and
impartial. The people will lose trust in the Judiciary. When the people no longer trust the
Judiciary, the tendency would be that they would take the law into their own hands.
2. Code of Judicial Conduct
Note: It has been superseded by the new code of judicial conduct and is merely suppletory to it.
A.M. 03-05-01-SC- contains the Supreme Court’s Adoption of the New Code of Judicial Ethics
(Note: The provisions shall be discussed in seratim later on in the summer reviewer)
Important Definitions under A.M. 03-05-01-SC
“COURT STAFF”: includes personal staff of the judge including law clerks.
“JUDGE”: any person exercising judicial power, however designated.
“JUDGE’S FAMILY”: includes a judge’s spouse, son, daughter, son-in law, daughter-in-law,
and any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 6 th civil degree, or person who is a
companion or employee of the judge and who lives in the judge’s household.
The Code of Judicial Conduct was promulgated on September 5, 1989 and became effective on
October 20, 1989
END OF TOPIC
B. QUALITIES
1. INDEPENDENCE
CANON 1. 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” means freedom from the influence, guidance or control from others.
Applied to judicial ethics, it is referred to as “JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE.” It refers to the
freedom of courts from extraneous influences or control. Independence of a judge has 2 prongs:
first, the judge must be free from the influences of other persons like members of the family and
friends (individual independence), second, as the court, no branch of the government or
agencies thereof could dictate upon it in the performance of its judicial duties (institutional
independence)
Focus of Canon 1 is Judicial Independence as:
1. A requisite to the Rule of Law

2. A fundamental guarantee of fair trial
Guarantee of Judicial Independence

There is no sure guarantee of judicial independence than the God-given character and fitness of
those appointed to the Bench.
Judge Must Be Brave and Strong Enough to Be Independent
The Life of a Judge

A Judge should be courageous in his mission to administer justice. He must be above public
clamor and the consideration of personal popularity. He must be brave enough to displease any
man or interest or power, but should render justice without regard for his personal advantages
or safety. A judge should be mindful that his duty is the application of general law to particular
instances, that ours is a government of laws and not of men, and that he violates his duty as a
minister of justice under such a system if he seeks to do what he personally considers
substantial justice in a particular case and disregards the general law as he knows it to be
binding on him.
Judges must reject pressure from any source by maintaining independence:

1. Independence from public officials- The public laid their confidence on the fact that the
official is mentally and morally fit to pass upon the merits of their varied intentions.
2. Independence from government as a whole- Avoid inappropriate connections, as well as
any situation that would give rise to the impression of the existence of such inappropriate
connections.
3. Independence from family, social, or other relationships- Do not sit in litigation where a
near relative is a part of or counsel.
4. Independence from public opinion- only guide is the mandate of the law.
Section 1of CANON 1
Section 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial functions independently on the basis of their
assessment of the fact 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.
Judge Should Not Be Swayed by the Pressure of Public Opinion
When the trial judge issued a warrant of arrest without conducting a hearing due to a rally
staged by the complainant and their sympathizers, the Court held that the issuance of a warrant
was unjustified. The Court stated that the presence of a rally demanding the issuance of
something is not sufficient excuse for the judge to have acted in unjustified haste (Libaros v.
Dabalos, A.M. No. RTJ-89-286, 1991).
It appears that the trial court has been moved by a desire to cater to public opinion to the
detriment of the impartial administration of justice. The petitioner is portrayed by the media as
not exactly a popular person. Nevertheless, the trial court should not have been influenced by
this irrelevant consideration, remembering instead that its only guide was the mandate of the
law (Concurring opinion of Justice Isagani Cruz, Go v. CA, G.R. No. 101837, 1992).
Judge Who Gives in To Pressures Loses His Independence
Her [The Judge’s] confessed act of succumbing to this pressure on the telephone is a patent
betrayal of the public trust reposed on respondent as an arbiter of the law and a revelation of
her weak moral character. By her appointment, the public has laid respondent fit to pass upon
the merits of their varied contentions. They expect her to be unafraid to displease any person,
interest or power and to be equipped with a moral fiber strong enough to resist the temptations
lurking in the office. Respondent [Judge] has dismally failed to exhibit the qualities required of
those holding such office. Judge is dismissed (Ramirez v. Corpuz-Macandog, A.M. No. R-351-
RTJ, 1986).
Provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct relevant to this Section:
 Rule 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the
applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.
 Rule 1.03 - The judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the
independence of the judiciary and resist any pressure from whatever source.
Section 2 of CANON 1
Section 2. In performing judicial duties, Judges shall be independent from judicial colleagues in
respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to make independently.
1. In the performance of their duties, judges must be freed and liberated from the influences of
their own colleagues in respect to decisions they are rendering. They must resist the
inducements of their own colleagues in the judiciary. However, this will not apply in
collegiate courts where there is group deliberation. In group deliberations, the Chairman and
members have to state their individual positions on the issues which may sway the others.
 Canon 1. A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary.
 Rule 1.03. A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the independence
of the judiciary and resist any pressure from whatever source.
Section 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.
A Judge Shall Not Influence the Outcome of a Litigation Pending in another court or
administrative agency
SAMPLE PROBLEM
Q: An RTC Judge wrote a letter to an MTC judge, influencing the latter to promptly hear and
decide a case, if he has jurisdiction or, if not, to remand the case to the RTC. The other parts of
the letter indicated a message to acquit. When the MTC Judge convicted the accused, the RTC
Judge directed the MTC Judge to forward the records to the RTC. Without notice to the parties,
the RTC Judge acquitted the accused. Was this proper?
A: No. The respondent [RTC judge] was held guilty (1) of having made untruthful statements in
his Certificate of Service, of inexcusable negligence and gross inefficiency in connection with
missing records in his sala, and of utter indifferences to the directives of the Court, and (2) of
serious misconduct for undue interest in a pending criminal case before a lower court over
which he exercised supervision, all in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct (Sabitsana v.
Villamor, A.M. No. 90-474, 1991).
SAMPLE PROBLEM
Q: An Executive Judge was requested by a party involved in a barangay conciliation

proceedings. During the conciliation proceedings, he introduced himself as the Executive Judge
of the area. This act is an obvious demonstration of support for said party. Proper?
A: No. The actuations of the judge are improper and censurable. A judge should refrain from
interfering in any manner in the outcome of a litigation before any court or another
administrative agency. (Marces, Sr. v. Arcangel, A.M. No. RTJ-91-712, 1996).
Judge shall not interfere in the works of Judges of co-equal jurisdiction; Exception
Judges are not allowed to interfere with the orders or decisions of courts of co-equal jurisdiction
(PDCP Development Bank v. Vestil, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1354, 1996). A becoming modesty of
inferior courts demands realization of the position that they occupy in the interrelation and
operation of the integrated judicial system of the nation (People v. Vera, G.R. No. L-45685,
1937). In effect, a judge cannot issue a TRO, writ of injunction (PDCP Development Bank v.
Judge Augustine Vestil, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1354, 1996), nor certiorari, prohibition or mandamus
against a co-equal court.
However, a judge may revoke the orders of another judge in a litigation subsequently assigned
to him (Washington Distillers, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 118151, 1996). The rule is also not applicable
where the judge of a branch of the court issues a writ of preliminary injunction in a case to
enjoin the sheriff from carrying out an order of execution issued in another case by the judge of
another branch of the same court. (Luciano v. Provincial Governor of Rizal, G.R. No. L-30306,
1969).
Judge shall not demean other judges
A Judge should not boast that he is personally writing, editing and finalizing his decisions for
promulgation, implying that others do not do so personally (Guintu v. Lucero, A.M. No. MTJ-93-
794, 1996).
Judge should respect orders, resolutions and decisions of Higher Courts
It would seem hardly necessary to add that judges should respect the orders and decisions of
an appellate court. Refusal to honor an injunctive order of the Supreme Court constitutes
contempt (Barrera v. Barrera, G.R. No. L-31589, 1970). Judges should respect resolutions of
the Supreme Court (Hernandez v. Colayco, G.R. No. L-39800, 1975).
Undue interference by Judges during presentation of evidence must be avoided
A judge may properly intervene to expedite and prevent unnecessary waste of time (Domanico
v. CA, G.R. No. L-38139, 1983). He may intervene to propound clarificatory questions (People
v. Muit, G.R. No. L-48875, 1982), and not to ask searching questions after the witness has
given direct testimony. The judge’s questions should only be for clarification and not to build the
case for one of the parties (Valdez v. Aquilizan, G.R. No. L-67411-24, 1984).
What constitutes undue interference by a Judge in the presentation of evidence?
General Rule: Clarificatory questions allowed for a full and clear understanding of the
facts.
Under our system of legal procedure where he is judge of both the law and the facts, it is often
expedient or even necessary in the due and faithful administration of justice for the presiding
judge, in the exercise of sound discretion, to question a witness in order that his judgment may
rest upon a full and clear understanding of the clarificatory facts (People v. Adora, G.R. Nos.
116528-31, 1997).
Exception: There will be undue interference if the judge will extensively propound questions to
the witnesses, which will have the effect of or will tend to build or bolster the case for one of the
parties. Such intervention will betray the personal interest and partiality of the judge. There is
also undue interference when the judge propounds questions which are searching questions
after the witness had given direct testimony. When a judge assumes the dual role of magistrate
and advocate, the cold neutrality of an impartial judge requirement of due process was denied
(Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 103501-03, 1997).
Reasons for the rule against undue interference
A judge must not only be impartial but must also appear impartial. If he propounds questions to
witnesses for some purposes (other than clarification of some obscure points, or to promote
justice or to prevent waste of time) he will come out biased against or partial in favor of a party.
Actuations of judges must always be beyond suspicion and reproach (Dela Cruz v. Bersamira,
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1567, 2001).
Judge should not interrupt counsel in their arguments; Exception
A judge 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. (Canon 14, Canon of Judicial Ethics [hereinafter CJE])
Judge should not compel accused to personally cross-examine witnesses against him
It is improper for a judge to compel an accused whose lawyer is absent and who admits he is
not skilled to handle his own trial to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses (Olaivar v.
Singco, A.M. 45-MJ, 1974).
Provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct relevant to this Section:
 Rule 2.04 - A Judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation
or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.
Section 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.
A Judge must insulate himself from extraneous influences in the performance of his
duties
A judge like any other human being lives in continuous interpersonal relationships in the family,
in the Church, in the community and other groupings. Whatever is the binding thread of that
relationship, he should not allow it to influence his judicial conduct and performance of duties.
He should insulate himself from these influences so that he disposes cases solely on the basis
of the evidence and the law.
Judge shall not use his chambers as family residence
A judge shall not use his chambers as his family’s residence even with the Governor’s
permission (Presado v. Genova, A.M. No. RTJ-91-657, 1993).
Judge shall not lend the prestige of his office to others
When a judge allowed himself to be dragged into what was purely private matter between
feuding families, he is guilty of misconduct. By attending barangay conciliation proceedings and
introducing himself as the Executive Judge, the judge lent the prestige of his office to the party
(Marces, Sr. v. Arcangel, A.M. No. RTJ-91-712, 1996).
Judge shall not permit any person to convey the impression that the latter has special
influence over him
A Judge should have inhibited himself in a case where the counsel appearing before him is a
counsel of the family of the judge. For not inhibiting himself immediately, the judge created the
impression upon the complainant and the public that the counsel’s client was in a position to
influence him (Socorro Yulo-Tuvilla v. Judge Balgos, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1149, 1998).
Judge’s Family
1. Judge’s spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and
2. Any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 6th civil degree, or
3. Person who is a companion or employee of the judge and who lives in the judge’s
household.
Provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Code of Judicial Ethics relevant to this
Section:
 Rule 2.03 - A judge 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. (Code of Judicial
Conduct [hereinafter CJC])
 Canon 12. Kinship or influence of parties and counsel- A judge should not, unless it
is unavoidable, sit in litigation where a near relative is a party or of counsel; and he
should not suffer his conduct to create the impression that any person can unduly
influence him or enjoy his favor, or that he is affected by rank, position, or influence of
any party. (CJE)
Section 5. Judges shall not only be free from appropriate connection with, and influence by, the
executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to
a reasonable observer.
Freedom from Institutional Influences
Judges must be vigilant in guarding their independence against corroding influences emanating
from the other branches of the government. They must not succumb to the undue pressures of
high government officials. The only pressure they must respect is pressure or dictate of the law
(Garcia v. Bueser, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1792, 2004).
Section 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.
Individual or Personal Independence
Judges must exhibit reasonable aloofness from the members of the community, particularly
persons with pending or impending controversies in their courts. Deliberate aloofness which is
self-imposed exclusion is one of the high prices for which they were recommended for and
successfully appointed by the President of the Philippines with the right to hold it in decent pride
until retirement.
Provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics relevant to this Section:

Canon 30. Social Relations. It is not necessary to the proper performance of judicial duty that
judges should live in retirement or seclusion; it is desirable that, so far as the reasonable
attention to the completion of their work will permit, they continue to mingle in social intercourse,
and that they should not discontinue their interests in or appearance at meetings of members of
the bar. A judge should, however, in pending or prospective litigation before him be scrupulously
careful to avoid such action as may be reasonable tend to weaken the suspicion that his social
or business relations or friendships constitute an element in determining his judicial course.
Section 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.
Judicial Safeguards
In the performance of their duties, the judges must always be wary and cautious that outside
forces shall not be permitted to derail or undermine the independence of the judiciary. They are
expected to stand up and defend the integrity of the courts whenever attacks are hurled without
justification.
Section 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.
High standard of judicial conduct; Rationale
A high standard of judicial conduct, not required of other members of the bar of other
professions, is mandated of a judge because he is the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence (Rule 1.01, CJC). He is the visible representation of the law and justice (Arban v.
Borja, A.M. No. R-281-RTJ, 1986).
Characteristics of a Good Judge
Our conception of good judges has been, and is, of men who have a mastery of the principles of
law, who discharge their duties in accordance with law, who are permitted to perform the duties
of the office undeterred by outside influence, and who are independent and self-respecting
human units in a judicial system equal and coordinate to the other departments of the
government (Borromeo v. Mariano, G.R. No. L-16808, 1921).
A Judge is the visible representation of the law
A Judge is the visible representation of the law and more importantly of justice (Arban v. Borja,
A.M. No. R-281-RTJ, 1986). As such, he should avoid even the slightest infraction of the law
(Cabrera v. Pajares, A.M. Nos. R-278-RTJ & R-309-RTJ, 1986).
Justices and Judges shall not blindly obey the orders of even the Highest Offices of the
land
Judges should emulate the great common-law jurist who made clear that he would not just
blindly obey the King’s order but will do what becomes of him as a judge (Dela Llana v. Alba,
G.R. No. L-57883, 1982).
 Rule 2.01 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.
INTEGRITY
CANON 2. INTEGRITY
INTEGRITY is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office, but also to the
personal demeanor of the judges.
INTEGRITY
A steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. It is honesty and honorableness put into
one. When a judge has integrity, it is presumed that he has the virtues of impartiality, propriety,
equality and independence. Moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue. It is a necessity
(Catbagan v. Barte, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1452, 2005).
 Rule 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and

independence.
Judges must be exemplars in the community
All trial judges should endeavor to conduct themselves strictly in accordance with the mandate
of the existing laws and Code of Judicial ethics that they be exemplars in their communities and
the living personification of justice and Rule of Law (SC Circular No. 13, Dated July 1, 1987).
Behavior of Judges
A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary (Vito v. Buslon Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-94-1160, 1995).
Standards of Integrity; How measured
The standards of integrity required of members of the bench are not satisfied by conduct which
merely enables one to escape the penalties of the criminal law (Centrum Agri-Business Realty
Corporation v. Katalbas-Moscardon, A.M. No. RTJ-92-880, 1995). Both in his public and private
life, the judge must live honestly and uprightly being the visible representation of the law. He
must be an ideal example in the community. Judges are presumed to be honest and men of
integrity unless proven otherwise (People v. Bocar, 97 Phil. 398, 1999).
Section 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that is
perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
Conduct of Judges must be above reproach
A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities. A judge
is not only required to be impartial; he must also appear to be impartial. Public confidence in the
judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges (Dela Cruz v. Judge
Bersamira, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1567, 2000). Judges must not only render just, correct and
impartial decisions, but must do so in a manner free of any suspicion as to their fairness,
impartiality and integrity (Rallos v. Judge Gako, Jr. A.M. No. RTJ-99-1484, 2000).
A judge’s official conduct and behavior in the performance of judicial duties should be free from
the appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach (Alazas v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-
55808, 1984). Judges are viewed as the visible representations of law and justice, from whom
the people draw the will and inclination to obey the law. Their personal behavior, not only on the
bench and in the performance of judicial duties but also in their everyday lives, should be
beyond reproach (Jacinto v. Vallarta, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1541, 2005).
Provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics relevant to this Section:
 Canon 31. A Summary of Judicial Obligations. A judge’s conduct should be above

reproach and in the discharge of his judicial duties he should be conscientious, studious,
thorough, courteous, patient, punctual, just, impartial, fearless of public clamor, and
regardless of private influence should administer justice according to law and should
deal with the patronage of the position as a public trust; and he should not allow outside
matters or his private interests to interfere with the prompt and proper performance of his
duties.
Section 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.
A Judge pays a high price for the Honor bestowed upon him
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 (Luque v. Kayanan, G.R. No. L-26826, 1969).
Moral Integrity; An indispensable virtue for all judges
People who run the judiciary, particularly judges and justices, must not only be proficient in both
the substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess the
highest integrity, probity and unquestionable moral uprightness, both in their public and private
lives. A Judge should not only possess proficiency in law, but should likewise possess moral
integrity for the people look up to him as a virtuous and upright man (Talens-Dabon v. Arceo,
A.M. No. RTJ-96-13336, 1996).
A Judge must be like Caesar’s wife

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 beyond suspicion (Palang v. Zosa, G.R. No. L-
38229, 1974).
Four “IN”s for Judges
Judges must personify four “IN”s: Integrity, Independence, Industry and Intelligence
(Community Rural Bank of Guimba, Inc. v. Talavera, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1909, 2005).
Behavior Should Inspire Confidence in The Judge’s Impartiality
While judges should possess proficiency in law in order that they can competently construe and
enforce the law, it is more important that they should act and behave in such a manner that the
parties before them should have confidence in their impartiality (Tan v. Gallardo, GR No. L-
41213-14, 1976).
Where a judge is not legally disqualified from sitting in a litigation, but suggestion is made of
record that he might be induced to act in favor of one party or with bias or prejudice against a
litigant arising out of circumstances reasonable capable of inciting such a state of mind, he
should exercise his discretion in a way that the people’s faith in the courts of justice should not
be impaired (Pimentel v. Salanga, G.R. No. L-27934, 1967).
The suspicion of appearance of bias or prejudice on the part of the part of the judge can be as
damaging as actual bias or prejudice, to the public convenience and administration of justice
(Montemayor v. Bermejo, Jr., AM No. MTJ-04-1535, 2004).
Section 3.
Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers of court
personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.
IMPARTIALITY
Canon 3. 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.
Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice.
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.
Section 3. Judges shall, so far as 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.
Judges should avoid activities or occasions which will increase possibility of being
disqualified in a hearing
Fraternization with practicing lawyers and litigants is replete with detriments and drawbacks in
the administration of justice (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 636-638, 2009).
Section 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.
Making complaints on the alleged weakness of the complainant’s case; Evidences

Partiality
When a judge, in the secrecy of his chambers informs the parties of the weakness of one’s
case, they could no longer be expected to have faith in his partiality. They could very well
conclude that there was prejudgment (Castillo v. Juan, GR. No. L-39516-17, 1975).
Judges Must Avoid Publicity for Personal Vanity or Self-Glorification
 Rule 2.02 - A judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory.
 Rule 3.07 - A judge should abstain from making public comments on any pending or
impending case and should require similar restraint on the part of court personnel.
Section 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: (PL-EE-RR-F)
(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.
Rule 137, 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.
Compulsory Inhibition; Mandatory Inhibition
The 1st paragraph is the rule on mandatory disqualification (Compulsory Inhibition). It

enumerates the grounds under which the judge is disqualified. The doctrine now is that the legal
grounds are exclusive.
The 2nd paragraph deals with inhibition (Voluntary Inhibition). It does not enumerate the
grounds but merely provides a policy-oriented ground for disqualification.
EXCEPTION to MANDATORY INHIBITION - Remittal of disqualification or disclosure on the

part of the judge and the subsequent agreement by the parties that inhibition is not necessary.
(Section 6, Canon 3, New Code of Judicial Conduct). Waiver will not constitute an exception.
Rationale
No judge should preside in a case which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and
independent. Courts should scrupulously protect the rights of litigants in this regard (Urbanes v.
CA, G.R. 117964, 2001).
Regarding actual bias, there must be convincing proof to show that he or she is biased and
partial (Solidbank v. Del Monte Motor Works, G.R. No. 143338, 2005).
Bias and partiality must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. Bare allegations will not
suffice (Wong Jan Realty v. Espanol, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1647, 2005).
For bias and prejudice to be a ground for disqualification, it must be shown to have stemmed
from an extrajudicial source, and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than
what the judge learned from his participation in the case (Aleria, Jr. v. Velez, G.R. No. 127400,
1998).
The rule of disqualification of judges must yield to demands of necessity that a judge is not
disqualified to sit in a case if there is no other judge available to hear and decide the case
(Parayno v. Meneses, G.R. No. 112684, 1994).
Regarding personal knowledge, a judge is supposed to exercise his duties with objectivity
(Castillo v. Juan, G.R. Nos. L-39516-17, 1975).
If he has personal knowledge, he loses objectivity. When the judge however, inhibits himself, he
may be presented as a witness.
Judges and justices are not disqualified from participating in a case simply because they have
written legal articles on the law involved in the case (Chavez v. Public Esates Authority, G.R.
No. 133250, 2002).
The petition to disqualify a judge must be filed before rendition of judgment, and cannot be
raised on appeal (Government v. Heirs of Abella, G.R. No. 25009, 1926).
 Rule 3.12 - A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.
Section 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.
 Rule 3.13 - A judge disqualified by the terms of rule 3.12 may, instead of withdrawing
from the proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of disqualification. If, based on
such disclosure, the parties and lawyers independently of judge's participation, all agree
in writing that the reason for the inhibition is immaterial or insubstantial, the judge may
then participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers,
shall be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.
PROPRIETY
CANON 4. PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of
a judge.
PROPRIETY
Propriety is the conformity to prevailing customs and usage.
Section 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities.
Judge should be free from any appearance of impropriety both in his public and private
life
A judge’s official conduct should be free from any appearance of impropriety; and his personal
behavior, not only in the bench and in the performance of his duties, but also in his everyday
life, should be beyond reproach (Office of the Court Administrator v. Duque, A.M. P-05-1958,
2005).
Provision of the Canons of Judicial Ethics relevant to this Section:
 Canon 3. Avoidance of appearance of impropriety. A judge's official conduct should

be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the
bench and in the performance of judicial ethics, but also in his everyday life, should be
beyond reproach.
Section. 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.
Acts of Judges must conform with the dignity of the Judicial Office
As judges are occupying exalted positions, they must exercise some restraint freely and willingly
to prevent unnecessary criticisms of condemnations (Padilla v. Zantua, A.M. No. MTJ-93-88,
1994). Avoidance of improprieties, which require some personal sacrifices, is an essentiality
for judges because in the ultimate end, if their dispensation of justice is perceived fair and
acceptable, they contribute a lot to the maintenance of peace and order in the community.
Section 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.
Section 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.
When a member of the Judge’s family represents a litigant, he must disqualify himself
A member of the Judge’s family include: (SC2-RC)

 Spouse
 Children
 Children-in-law
 Any Relative within the 6th civil degree, whether by affinity or consanguinity
 Companion or employee of the judge who lives in his household
Relatives deemed covered: (A-ICU)

 Adopted Child
 Recognized Illegitimate child
 First and second Cousins by blood, and first and second cousins-in-law
 Uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces; grandnephews and grandnieces
When any one of the relatives of the judge will represent a litigant in the case pending before
him, the judge must consider self-disqualification that the confidence of the people may not
erode (Garcia v. Burgos, G.R. No. 124130, 1998). Even if the relative is not a representative of
a litigant, the judge must still disqualify himself if a relative is associated in any manner with the
case (Austria v. Masaguel, G.R. No. L-22536, 1967).
Provision of the Canons of Judicial Ethics relevant to this Section:
 Rule 3.12 - A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality
might reasonably be questioned. These cases include among others, proceedings
where: (PERRF)
1. the judge has Personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding;
2. 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;
3. the judge's Ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;
4. the judge is Related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree
or to counsel within the fourth degree;
5. the judge knows the judge's 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 proceeding.
In every instance, the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition.
Section. 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.
It is improper for a Judge to allow a practitioner to receive his clients in his residence
By entertaining a litigant in his home and receiving benefits given by said litigant, respondent
miserably failed to live up to the standards of judicial conduct (J. King and Sons v. Hontanosas,
Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-03-1802, 2004).
Section 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.
Judges do not lose their rights as citizens when they perform their Judicial roles
When a lawyer is appointed as a judge, he does not lose any of his fundamental rights and
freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. However, in the exercise thereof, there are
restrictions which they must uphold and respect (Lorenzana v. Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200,
April 2014).
Provision of the Canon of Judicial Ethics relevant to this Section:
 Canon 27. Partisan politics. While entitled to entertain his personal view on political
questions, and while not required to surrender his rights or opinions as a citizen, it is
inevitable that suspicion of being warped by political bias will attach to a judge who
becomes the active promoter of the interests of one political party against another.
A Judge should avoid making political speeches, contributions to party funds, the public
endorsement of candidates for political office, or participating in party conventions (Rule 5.10,
CJC).
Section 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.
Section 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.
 Rule 2.03 - A judge 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.
Section 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in their judicial capacity shall not be
used or disclosed for any other purpose related to their judicial duties.
Confidential Information
The prohibition to use or disclose confidential information acquired by the judge in his judicial
capacity is not absolute. If the purpose of the use or disclosure is related to their judicial duties,
there is a violation. But if the purpose is not related to their judicial duties, there is no violation
(Notice In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents and the Attendance of Court
Officials and Employees, February 2012).
 Rule 5.05 - No information acquired in a judicial capacity shall be sued or disclosed by a

judge in any financial dealing or for any other purpose not related to judicial activities.
Sections 10 of CANON 4
Section 10. Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, judges may: (WHO)
1. Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities concerning the law, the legal system, the
administration of justice or related matters;
2. 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;
3. 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.
Section 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial office.
Judges Cannot Practice Law
The position of a judge is a lifetime duty and responsibility. It requires preserving dedication to
the task. The court dockets of judges are generally clogged with so many pending cases. There
is no time for judges to pursue another profession, occupation or calling which equally requires
attention, mindfulness, and vigilance. It covers any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of the law, legal principles, practice or procedure and calls for legal knowledge,
training and experience (Mercado v. De Vera, A.C. No. 3066, 2001).
Practice of Law
Generally, to engage in their practice is to do any of those acts which are characteristic of the
legal profession (In Re: David, 93 Phil. 461, 1954).
Limitations of Sec. 10
 May participate in legal academia but it should not interfere in the performance of
the judge’s primary functions;
 Sec. 12, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution: Prohibits judges from being designated
to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
 Rule 5.07 - A judge shall not engage in the private practice of law. Unless prohibited by
the Constitution or law, a judge may engage in the practice of any other profession
provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with judicial functions.
Section 12. Judges may form or join associations of judges, or participate in other organizations
representing the interests of judges.
Section 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.
GIFT: Refers to a thing or a right of gratuity, or any act of liberality, in favor of another who
accepts it (RA 6713, Sec. 3(c)).
LOAN: Covers simple loan and commodatum, as well as guarantees, financing arrangements
or accommodations intended to ensure its approval (RA 6713, Sec. 3[e]).
NOTE: Correlate with R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
 Rule 5.04 - A judge or any immediate member of the family shall not accept a gift,
bequest, factor or loan from anyone except as may be allowed by law.
Section 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.
Judge may not accept gifts, bequests, loans or favors
The judge may not directly solicit or accept gifts, bequests, or loans or favors in consideration
of:
1. Something done
2. To be done
3. Omitted to be done
In such a case, the judge is liable for bribery.
Legal Acts of a Judge that violate CJC:

 Hearing cases on a day when he was supposed to be on official leave.
 Hearing a motion while on vacation in his room dressed in a polo jacket.
 Photos showing the judge and his subordinate coming out of the hotel together were
enough to give the appearance of impropriety.
 Sitting beside the counsel of his brother in the courtroom where the latter was
involved in an election case.
Section 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.
Token Gift
To avoid any misinterpretation, the Section described the gift as a token gift to indicate that it is
just a symbolic gesture (Aspiras vs. Ganay A.M. No. RTJ-07-2055, 2009).
EQUALITY
Canon 5. EQUALITY
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the
judicial office.
 Canon 3. A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and
diligence.
Section 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.
Section 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.
A judge shall show no signs of bias or prejudice toward any person or persons on irrelevant
grounds while in the performance of his duties. Any display of bias or prejudice will adversely
affect his image of being an impartial judge.
Provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon of Judicial Ethics relevant to this
Section:
 Rule 3.07. A judge should abstain from making public comments on any pending or
impending case and should require similar restraint on the part of court personnel.
 Canon 3. Avoidance of appearance of impropriety. A judge's official conduct should

be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the
bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be
beyond reproach.
Section 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.
Name-calling; Inappropriate behavior
Calling the complainant a greedy and usurer Chinese woman, tagging her lawyer as lazy and
negligent while branding her own clerk of court as equally lazy and incompetent is not language
befitting the esteemed position of a magistrate of law (Cua Shuk Yin v. Perello, AM No. RTJ-05-
1961, 2005).
Section 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.
Judges must see to it that their court personnel do not discriminate against anyone in respect to
the personnel’s performance of their duties, by dispensing special favors or disclosing to any
unauthorized person any confidential information (Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, Canon
1, Section 3, A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, 2004),
Section 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.
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
CANON 6. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.
INTELLIGENCE: Possession of sufficient learning, ability and skill in a particular discipline

enhanced by actual and sufficient experience in the field.
 Rule 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.
 Rule 3.08 - A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain
professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the
administrative functions or other judges and court personnel.
Section 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all activities
Primary duty of hearing and deciding cases
The primary duty of judges is to hear and decide cases brought to them for trial and
adjudication. As to Judges’ other administrative assignments, including organizing special
events, the respondent judge should only be reminded that decision making is the primordial
and most important duty of a member of the judiciary (Re: Complaint Against Justice Asuncion
of the Court of Appeals, A.M. No. 06-6-8-CA, 518 SCRA 512, 2006 ).
 Canon 5. A judge should regulate extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict
of social duties.
 Rule 5.02 - A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealing that tend to reflect
adversely on the court's impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial
activities or increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the
court. A judge should so manage investments and other financial interests as to
minimize the number of cases giving grounds for disqualifications.
Section 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.
Gross misconduct and inexcusable negligence
The loss of not one but eight records is indicative of gross misconduct and inexcusable
negligence unbecoming of a judge. For true professionalism in the bench to exist, judges whose
acts demoralize the ethical standards of a judicial office and whose acts demonstrate unfitness
and unworthiness of the prestige and prerequisites attached to the said office must be weeded
out (Longboan v. Polig, A.M. No. 704-RTJ, 1990).
A judge should conduct a periodic review of the archived cases in his sala (Administrative Order
No. 7-a-92).
If the archived cases have remained untouched for several years, there is gross inefficiency
(Surigao Citizens Movement for Good Government v. Coro, A.M. MTJ-96-1099, 1996).
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.
Judges are expected to be conversant with the developments of the law and
jurisprudence
The maxim “ignorance of the law excuses no one” has special application to judges (Espiritu v.
Javellanos, A.M. No. MTJ-97-1139, 1997). As advocates of justice and visible representation of
the law, the public expects judges to be conversant with the developments of law and
jurisprudence and proficient in their application or interpretation of it (Almonte v. Bien, A.M.
No. MTJ-04-1532, 2005).
Having accepted the exalted position of a judge, whereby he judges his own fellowmen, the
judge owes it to the public who depends on him and to the dignity of the court he sits in, to be
proficient in the law. It has been said that a judge is a man of learning, who spends tirelessly the
weary hours after midnight acquainting himself with the great body of traditions and learning the
law. Although a judge is nearing retirement he should not relax in his study of the law and court
decisions (Ajeno v. Inserto, AM No. 1098-CFI, 1976). Those who wield that judicial gravel have
the duty to study our laws and their latest wrinkles- they owe it to the public to be legally
knowledgeable for ignorance of the law is the mainspring of injustice (Bio v. Valera, AM No.
MTJ-96-1074, 1996).
Provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon of Judicial Ethics relevant to this
Section:
 Canon 4. Essential Conduct - He should be temperate, patient, attentive,

impartial, and since he is to administer the law and apply it to the facts, he should
be studious of the principles of law, diligent in endeavoring to ascertain the facts
(CJE).
 Canon 4 - A judge may, with due regard to official duties, engage in activities to
improve the law, the legal system and the administration of justice (CJC).
Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant developments of international law,
including international conventions and other instruments establishing human rights norms.
Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently,
fairly and with reasonable promptness.
Promptness
A judge should decide cases with dispatch (Castro v. Malazo, A.M. No. 1237-CAR, 1980). He
should decide motions of parties without delay (Pernea v. Montecillo, A.M. No. 631-CFI, 1981),
and should be more careful, punctual and observant in the performance of his functions
(Secretary of Justice v. Bidin, A.M. No. 194-J, 1971).
The failure of a judge to decide a case within the period as specified by the Constitution is
inexcusable and constitutes gross inefficiency (Re: Judge Tenerife, A.M. No. 94-5-42 MTC,
1996).
Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid reason to interrupt or suspend the
period for deciding the case, unless the case was previously heard by another judge, in which
case, the deciding judge shall have the full period of 90 days for the completion of the
transcripts within which to decide the same (Olaguer v. Judge Ampuan, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1769,
2010).
Provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon of Judicial Ethics relevant to this
Section:
 Canon 6. Promptness - He should be prompt in disposing of all matters to him,

remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied. (CJE)
 Rule 1.02 - A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay. (CJC)
 Rule 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases
within the required periods. (CJC)
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.
Provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon of Judicial Ethics relevant to this
Section:
 Rule 3.03 - A judge shall maintain order and proper decorum in the court. (CJC)
 Rule 3.04- A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the
inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge
should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for
the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants. (CJC)
 Rule 3.08 - A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain
professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the
administrative functions or other judges and court personnel. (CJC)
 Rule 3.09 - A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the
prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high
standards of public service and fidelity. (CJC)
Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial duties.
END OF TOPIC
DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS
OF THE JUDICIART
C. Discipline of Members of the

Judiciary
1. Members of the Supreme Court
▪ Impeachment
▪ Ethical lessons from
Former Chief Justice
Corona’s Impeachment
2. Lower court judges and justices
of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan (Rule 140)
3. GROUNDS
4. IMPEACHMENT
5. SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE
SUPREME COURT ON ERRING
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
MEMBERS OF THE SC
Impeachment
The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on
impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public
officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by
impeachment (1987 Const., art. 11, §2).
COMMENTS:
A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a Member of the Philippine Bar as a
qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from office only by
impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer.
Further, such public officer, during his incumbency, cannot be charged criminally before the
Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offense which carries with it the penalty of removal
from office, or any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office (In Re First
Indorsement From Honorable Raul M. Gonzalez, A.M. 88-4-5433, 1988).
Ethical Lessons from Former Chief Justice Corona’s Impeachment
The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated: “public confidence in the judicial system is
crucial in its discharge of function. It makes all the members of the Judiciary responsible for
upholding this confidence.” (Sarah Lou Ysmael Arriola and Dan Kevin C. Mandocdoc, Defining
the Parameters of Judicial Independence and Accountability in Light of Chief Justice Corona's
Impeachment: An Examination of the Violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct as a
Ground for Betrayal of Public Trust, 56 Ateneo Law Journal 772, 2012).
Justices of the Supreme Court must make their interests transparent, whether it be in a public or
private character. Dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the Judiciary (Faelnar v.
Palabrica, A.M. No. P-06-2251, 2009).
A Supreme Court Justice can be impeached on the ground of Culpable Violation of the
Constitution and/or Betrayal of the Public Trust when he/she fails to render an accurate and
complete disclosure to the public of his/her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth as
required under Sec. 17, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution.
The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably
reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and
morale of the service (Nera v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-13160, 1960).
There is nothing in R.A. No. 6426 (FCD Act) which prohibits the depositor from making a
declaration on his own of such foreign currency funds, especially where the Constitution
mandates the depositor who is a public officer to declare all assets under oath.
All the law (R.A. 6426) prohibits is the depository banks and third parties from disclosing the
account. The public officer is still mandated to uphold accountability and transparency.
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES
Even if the depositor who is a public official claims the defense of good faith under R.A. 6426,
but given his broad experience in public law and practice in investment advisory services, his
willful and deliberate omission, together with the magnitude of the subject matter, amounts to a
culpable violation.
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.
A court interpreter can be dismissed from service because she fails to disclose in her SALN that
she rented a market stall (Rabe v. Flores, A.M. No. P-97-1247, 1997).
Inconsistencies of declarations in the SALNs of the public officer, such as a sheriff warrant a
penalty of dismissal from the service (Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, A.M. No. P-99-1342,
2005).
Requisites for the Ombudsman to set preventive suspension (DRP):

1. Charge involves Dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct or neglect of duty
2. Charges would warrant Removal from service
3. Respondent’s continued stay in office may Prejudice the case filed against him
Under RA 3019, prior notice of the non-completion of the SALN and its correction is not needed
for charges to be validly filed against him. In other words, under RA 3019 (under which he is
also charged), he does not have to be given the chance to correct his SALN before charges can
be filed against him. It is also not condition precedent for him to be charged for dishonesty and
grave misconduct (Carabeo v. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 178000 and 178003, 2009).
Failure to declare motor vehicles warrants dismissal as Regional Director II of the BIR (Flores v.
Montemayor G.R. No. 170146, 2010).
All public officials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and
casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net
Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of their
spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households
(R.A. 6713 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees Sec.
8[a]).
.
Who must file and where must it be filed?
Failure to file SALNs without explanation warrants a penalty. While every office in the
government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral
righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the Judiciary. Hence, judges are
strictly mandated to abide with the law, the Code of Judicial Conduct and with existing
administrative policies in order to maintain the faith of our people in the administration of justice.
RULE 2.01 - A JUDGE SHOULD SO BEHAVE AT ALL TIMES AS TO PROMOTE PUBLIC

CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY. (CJC)
If public officers had been dismissed from office for failing to declare far less remarkable and
less valuable assets in their SALN's, despite and regardless of their excuses, then there is more
reason to apply the law when the assets in question amount to over P180 million (Explanation
of vote: Judge Sergio Osmeña III).
There is no such thing as a SALN so statistically perfect that it is precise to the last decimal
point. If a government employee is asked to catalogue what he owes and what he owns, some
information may fall into the crack, not as an act of deliberate concealment, but as an unwitting
omission done in good faith. However, in the case of the Chief Justice's SALN, the undeclared
assets are so huge, 50 times more than what he declared in cash - 2.4 million in US dollar
deposits, 80 million in peso deposits - that they cannot be brushed aside as innocent exclusions
(Explanation of vote: Judge Ralph Recto).
The fact of comingling, I can accept that but the huge amount involved leaves too much doubt in
my mind. In our interpretation of the law, we who hold a position of public trust, must choose the
interpretation that will uphold pubic interest over private interest. Regardless of whether malice
or an intent to suppress the truth was present, we must remember that Public office is a public
trust. Once that trust is gone, we must step down to preserve the integrity of the position we
hold (Explanation of vote: Judge Pia Cayetano).
If, indeed, any of the Respondent's cash deposits were co-mingled with the funds belonging to
other parties such as the Basa Guidote Enterprises, Inc. (BGEI) or his children, the Respondent
was still duty bound to declare these deposits in his SALN, they being admittedly under his
name. The evidence is devoid of any indication that the Chief Justice was holding these funds in
trust for or that they were actually beneficially owned by anyone other than himself or his wife.
His deliberate act of excluding substantial assets from his sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities
and Net Worth constitutes a culpable violation of the Constitution (Explanation of Vote: Senate
President Juan Ponce Enrile).
Sub judice does not apply in impeachment
Sub Judice Rule
The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in
order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of
justice. A violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule
71 of the Rules of Court (Romero v. Estrada, G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009).
The specific rationale for the sub judice rule is that courts, in the decision of issues of fact and
law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon
evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by
bias, prejudice or sympathies (Romero v. Estrada, G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009).
Police/Superintendent X had pending criminal cases for homicide before the RTC. The criminal
cases involved a shooting incident which was captured by a television crew (Incident 1).
Pending the resolution of the cases, another shooting incident occurred, where
Police/Superintendent X was the ground commander in a police-military team (Incident 2).
According to Police/Superintendent X, Incident 2 caused negative publicity on his part when the
counsel of the victim held a press conference in national television, making comments about
both Incident 1 and 2. He alleged that the sub judice rule was violated. However, the Supreme
Court ruled: The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial
proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the
administration of justice. What is, thus, sought to be protected is the all-important duty of the
court to administer justice in the decision of a pending case. The specific rationale for the sub
judice rule is that courts, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every
extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and that
the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies
(Marantan v. Diokno, G.R. No. 205956, 2014).
What constitutes sub judice and what is permissible opinion
For a comment to be considered as contempt of court "it must really appear" that such does
impede, interfere with and embarrass the administration of justice. What is, thus, sought to be
protected is the all-important duty of the court to administer justice in the decision of a pending
case. The specific rationale for the sub judice rule is that courts, in the decision of issues of fact
and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon
evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by
bias, prejudice or sympathies (Romero v. Estrada, G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009).
The power of contempt is inherent in all courts in order to allow them to conduct their business
unhampered by publications and comments which tend to impair the impartiality of their
decisions or otherwise obstruct the administration of justice. As important as the maintenance of
freedom of speech, is the maintenance of the independence of the Judiciary. The "clear and
present danger" rule may serve as an aid in determining the proper constitutional boundary
between these two rights. (Cabansag v. Fernandez, 102 Phil. 152, 161 (1957).
The nomination and selection of Francis Jardaleza as a Supreme Court Justice
Atty. J was nominated to a vacant seat in the SC. During the JBC deliberations, the Chief
Justice manifested that she was invoking the “unanimity rule” under the JBC Rules, i.e. when
the integrity of the applicant not otherwise disqualified is questioned, then the affirmative vote of
all the members of the JBC is needed for a favorable consideration of his nomination. Atty. J
garnered enough votes, but was excluded by the invocation of the unanimity rule. Atty. J filed a
petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel his inclusion.
Q: Does the SC have jurisdiction?
A: Yes, the SC has supervisory authority over the JBC. It has the duty to see to it that rules
are followed, and may order the work done or redone. However, the SC cannot grant
mandamus directing the JBC to include Atty. J in the JBC shortlist because the duty to nominate
is discretionary.
Q: Is there a valid question on integrity when the accusation is based on facts or matters
calling for professional judgment?
A: No, a disagreement in legal opinion is normal in the legal community. To question one’s
integrity, there must be an act linked to the moral character, and not to his judgment as a
professional.
Q: Is there a demandable right to due process in the JBC proceedings?
A: Yes. The fact that the proceedings are sui generis and impressed with discretion does not
take away the applicants’ entitlement to due process.
SAMPLE PROBLEM
Q: Atty. J was invited by the JBC to attend a meeting to explain his side. However, he
declined, stating that he wished to have a sworn statement of the allegations against
him, and to cross examine the Chief Justice in a public hearing. The JBC convened
without Atty. J and proceeded to decide the nominees in the shortlist. Atty. J claims a
violation of due process. Decide.
A: His right to be informed and defend himself was violated when the JBC failed to inform
him of the specific charges against him, because he was merely asked to appear in a meeting
where he would be, right there and then, subjected to an inquiry (Jardeleza v. Sereno, G.R. No.
213181, 2014).
LOWER COURT JUDGES AND JUSTICES OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND COURT OF

APPEALS
The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel
thereof (1987 Constitution, art. 8 §6).
Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court
administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the
Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only
the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws,
and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No
other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of
separation of powers.
The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers granted to it by the
Constitution, for such a justification not only runs counter to the specific mandate of the
Constitution granting supervisory powers to the Supreme Court over all courts and their
personnel, but likewise undermines the independence of the judiciary.
Thus, the Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner's certificates of service to this
Court for determination of whether said certificates reflected the true status of his pending case
load, as the Court has the necessary records to make such a determination. The Ombudsman
cannot compel this Court, as one of the three branches of government, to submit its records, or
to allow its personnel to testify on this matter, as suggested by public respondent Abiera in his
affidavit-complaint (Maceda v. Vasquez, G.R. 102781, 1993).
In re: the case of Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong
Janet Lim Napoles was charged before the Sandiganbayan concerning a controversy involving
Kevlar helmets. Justice Ong was accused of gross misconduct, partiality, corruption and bribery
after the acquittal. It was alleged that during the pendency of the Kevlar case, Justice Ong was
the “contact” of Ms. Napoles in the Sandiganbayan. A news website also showed a photo of
Justice Ong together with Ms. Napoles, and other people involved in the Pork Barrel
controversy. Justice Ong also failed to disclose in his letter to the Chief Justice (sent prior the
administrative proceedings) that he actually visited Ms. Napoles, despite his denial that he
socialized with her (A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, 2014).
Q: Is direct evidence of wrongdoing required in an administrative case for gross

misconduct?
A: No. In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required. Justice Ong’s

actions during and after the pendency of the trial constitutes gross misconduct, notwithstanding
absence of direct evidence of corruption and bribery.
Q: Justice Ong raised the defense that he was not the ponente of the decision acquitting
Ms. Napoles. Is his argument meritorious?
A: No, by the mere act of going to Ms. Napoles’ office, Justice Ong exposed himself to
the suspicion of partiality. The suspicion of partiality was not abolished, notwithstanding the
fact that the decision was promulgated as part of a collegial body.
Q: May a judge meet with litigants in pending cases before him or her?
A: No, such acts are grossly improper and violate Section 1, Canon 4 (Propriety) of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct. A judge must be impartial, and fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this
appearance.
Q: Is the rule on propriety limited to pending or prospective litigation, and not those
which have been completed?
A: No. It covers all times, because judges must be beyond reproach and should avoid the mere
suggestion of partiality and impropriety. Because magistrates are under constant public scrutiny,
the termination of a case will not deter public criticisms for acts which may cast suspicion on its
disposition or resolution.
Q: Is there any liability for failing to disclose that Justice Ong met with Ms. Napoles prior
to the initiation of the administrative proceedings?
A: Yes. These are: being untruthful on crucial matters amounts to dishonesty, a violation of
Canon 3 (Integrity) of the New Code of Judicial Ethics. Dishonesty, being a grave offense,
carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits
except accrued leave credits, and with perpetual disqualification from re- employment in
government service (Re: Allegations made under oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
hearing held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong,
Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, 2014).
GROUNDS AND CORRESPONDING SANCTIONS (RULE 140, ROC)

Discipline of Judges of Regular and Special Courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals
and the Sandiganbayan
SEC. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include:

a. Bribery, direct or indirect;
b. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019);
c. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
d. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in
an appropriate proceeding;
e. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
f. Willful failure to pay a just debt;
g. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the
court;
h. Immorality;
i. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
j. Partisan political activities; and
k. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits.
SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:

a. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;
b. Frequently and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness;

c. Unauthorized practice of law;
d. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;
e. Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law;
f. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service;
g. Simple Misconduct.
SEC. 10. Light Charges. – Light charges include:

1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;
2. Gambling in public;
3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending case/cases in his court; and
4. Undue delay in the submission of monthly reports.
SEC. 11. Sanctions. –
A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be
imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the
forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not
exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be
imposed:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor
more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
C. If the respondent is guilty of a light charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00 and/or Censure;
2. Reprimand;
3. Admonition with warning.
Cases when a less serious offense becomes a serious offense (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial
Ethics, 708, 718, 2009):
 Commission of two or more administrative offenses alleged in the same administrative

complaint.
 Repeated commission of a less serious offense or light offense.
Procedure for filing an administrative complaint (Rule 140, ROC):

1. Complaint in writing;
2. Setting forth clearly the facts and circumstances relied upon; and
3. Sworn to and supported by affidavits and documents.
4. Service or dismissal;
a. If the charge is with merit, a copy will be served upon the respondent, requiring him
to answer within 10 days from the date of service.
b. If not or the answer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the charges are not
meritorious, it will be dismissed which must followed by an answer within 10 days
from date of service.
5. Hearing;
6. Report filed with the Supreme Court of findings accompanied by evidence and
documents.
Malfeasance under the RPC:

 Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment (RPC, art. 204);
 Judgment Rendered Through Negligence (RPC, art. 205).
IMPEACHMENT (ETHICAL ASPECTS)
1. Conduct of Prosecutors
The Prosecutors of the House who are members of the Bar are of course covered by the Code
of Professional responsibility even in their conduct in impeachment proceedings.
Acts done during CJ Corona's impeachment:

o Atty. Aguirre covered his ears while Senator-judge Santiago was 'lecturing' the prosecutors.
o Applicable Canons/ Rules:
o 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. (CPR, Canon 11)
o 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. (CPR, Canon 7)
o Ducat, Jr. v. Villalon Jr. (A.C. No. 3910, 2000):''Public confidence in law and lawyers may be
eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every
lawyer should act and comport himself in such a manner that would promote public
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Members of the Bar are expected to
always live up to the standards of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.''
o Unpreparedness of prosecutors
• Examples:
o When questioned by Senator-judge Cayetano about how the House prepared their
Article on Corona's failure to disclose his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net
Worth (SALN) when in fact they had not seen the SALNs, Prosecutor Barzaga merely
replied that the charges were merely ''based on reports,'' (The Chief Justice on Trial
Timeline, GMA News Online) without any personal knowledge or investigation on their
end.
o The prosecution team presented evidence consisting of bank records which they
claimed to have been given by a ''small lady'' whom they did not know. (Id.)
o On day 21 of the Trial, Presiding Officer Enrile scolded the House prosecutors for
consistently failing to prepare their evidence, and instead, to cover for their
shortcomings, seek to avail of the Court's compulsory processes to fish out evidence.
(Id.)
o Applicable Canons/ Rules (of the Code of Professional Responsibility):
o CPR, Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
o CPR, Rule18.02 – A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
o CPR, Canon 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

o CPR, 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 preferences. He should also be ready with the original documents
for comparison with the copies.
o CPR, Canon 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of
the law.
o CPR, 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 or
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding.
''Public Trial''
o In a number of instances, evidence to be presented on trial, even prior to such being
admitted in court, found its way to the public; either through a press-conference by
the prosecution, or by some other more clandestine means.
o Examples:
o The prosecution presented to the media that they were going to expose 45 of
Corona's properties. However, upon questioning, they later on admitted that
they were only going to present 24, claiming as a defense that the list of the
45 properties did not come from them, but from the Land Registration
Authority. And this was said to have been found ''revolting'' by the defense.
(The Chief Justice on Trial Timeline, GMA NEWS ONL.)
o it was pointed out by senator-judge Joker Arroyo that some of the ITRs of CJ
Corona, prior to their presentation at the trial, were released to press, despite
it being a ''very confidential'' document. And yet again, the prosecution denied
releasing the said ITRs. (Id.)
o Applicable Canons/ Rules
o Rule 18 of the Senate Rules on Impeachment Trials: The Presiding Officer
and the Members of the Senate shall refrain from making any comments and
disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial.
The same shall likewise apply to the prosecutors, to the person impeached,
and to their respective counsel and witnesses. (S. Rules of Procedure on
Impeachment Trials, Rule 18.)
o CPR, 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.
o CPR, 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.
o CPR, Rule 10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
2. Conduct of Defense
o “P100 million offer”
o At a press conference held by the Defense team at Club Filipino, the defense
team declared and accused that Malacanang had tried to influence the
senator-judges to vote for the opening of CJ Corona's dollar account which

was supposedly protected by the Foreign Currency Deposits Act. And by this
he claimed that allegedly P100million were offered to each senator-judge.
(The Chief Justice on Trial Timeline, GMA NEWS ONL.)
o Applicable Canons/ Rules:
o CPR, 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.
o CPR, 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.
3. Conduct of Senator-Judges
o Senator Drilon's alleged bias
o Defense counsel Serafin Cuevas raised the issue on some senator-judges
''acting as prosecutors'' in aid of the House prosecutors. He was referring to
Senator Drilon, who on his own motion actually had a witness recalled for his
own questioning (The Chief Justice on Trial Timeline, GMA NEWS ONL.).
o Presiding Officer Enrile said in reply that ''inhibition is personal to each
senator'' and as such Drilon cannot be compelled to do so. He may not also
be disqualified as well, since ''Under the Constitution, he is entitled to sit in all
proceedings of the Senate unless he is removed in accordance with our rules
on ethics.'' (Only Drilon can decide on inhibition of fellow senators, PHIL.
DAILY INQ).
SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON ERRING MEMBERS OF THE

JUDICIARY
The Supreme Court has the mandate to oversee that all judges and justices of the judiciary
comply with the law and the Rules of Court (1987 Const. art. VIII, sec. 6). All complaints against
such judges or justices are lodged with the Supreme Court (Maceda v. Vasquez, G.R. No.
102781, 1993).
General grounds for administrative charges (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 686, 2009)
1. Malfeasance – performance of some act which ought not to be done

2. Misfeasance – improper performance of some act which might lawfully be done
3. Nonfeasance – omission of an act which ought to be performed (Government Auditing
Rules and Regulations, COA Circular No. 91-368, 1991).
General grounds for suspension and dismissal (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 686-687,
2009, 8th Ed).
 Those related to the discharge of the functions of the office concerned, such as neglect
of duty, oppression, corruption or other forms of mal-administration, etc.
 Those not related to, or connected with, the functions of the office, such as the
commission of a crime.
 Grounds falling under the first category may be proceeded against administratively at
once, while those falling under the second category requires a final judgment of
conviction unless the act committed constitutes a violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct (Provincial Board of Zamboanga del Norte v. Guzman, G.R. No. L-23523,
1967).
Charges are classified as serious, less serious and light charges (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial
Ethics, 687, 2009)
Different jurisprudence on the discipline of members of the Judiciary
Conduct unbecoming of a judge
Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly prohibits sitting judges from engaging in
the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients. Thus, a judge cannot sit as
co-counsel in an administrative case even if his co-counsel is his daughter who recently passed
the bar. Section 11, Canon 4 (Propriety), of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and Rule 5.07 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct reiterate the prohibition from engaging in the private practice of
law or giving professional advice to clients (Decena v. Malanyaon A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217,
2013).
The Supreme Court held that it was improper for a judge to visit jails and to confer with inmates
who have pending cases before her. The Court has consistently enjoined judges to avoid not
just impropriety in their conduct but even the mere appearance of impropriety. The appearance
of bias or prejudice can be damaging as actual bias or prejudice to the public’s confidence on
the Judiciary’s role in the administration of justice (Prosecutors Casar, et al. v. Soluren, A.M.
No. RTJ-12-2333, 2012).
END OF TOPIC
DISQUALIFICATION OF
JUDGES
COMPULSORY
Compulsory disqualifications are mandatory and the judge has no option but to inhibit
himself/herself from the case (Alexander Ortiz v. Judge Ibarra Jaculbe, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-04-
1833, 2005; Rule 137, ROC).
A judge has the duty to render a just decision and to do so in a manner that leaves his
reputation for fairness and integrity completely free from suspicion (Sergio Del Castillo v.
Manuel Javelona, et al., G.R. No. L-16742, 1962).
Under the Rules of Court, Rule 137, Sec. 1, judges are disqualified from sitting in a case when:
(P6CEP)
1. The judge, judicial officer or his wife or child is Pecuniarily interested in as heir, creditor
or otherwise.
2. The judge or judicial officer is related to either party within the sixth (6th) degree of
consanguinity or affinity.
3. The judge or judicial officer is related to Counsel within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity.
4. The judge or judicial officer has previously participated as the Executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee or counsel to ruling or decision subject of review.
5. The judge or judicial officer Previously participated by presiding over the case in any
inferior court over the ruling or decision subject of review.
This disqualification may be waived by the parties-in-interest, by signing a written waiver and
entering the same upon the record of the court (Rule 137, Sec. 1, ROC).
If a judge or judicial officer fails to inhibit himself, the party objecting to his competency may file
his objection in writing with the official, stating the grounds therefor. (Rule 137, Sec. 2, ROC)
The official, after determining the question of his disqualification, shall act either to withdraw
from the case or proceed with trial. The decision of the official shall be in writing and filed with
the other papers of the case. No appeal or stay of the official’s decision may be taken until final
judgment in the main case.
The following are NOT disqualified under Rule 137, Sec. 1:
 That the counsel and judge were classmates (Vda. de Bonifacio v. B.L.T. Bus Co., Inc.,
G.R. No. L-26810, 1970).
 That the counsel and judge were associates when the judge was practicing law
(Domingo Austria v. Hon. Antonio Masaquel, G.R. No. L-22536, 1967).
VOLUNTARY
A judicial officer in the exercise of his sound discretion, may disqualify himself for any other valid
cause other than those stated in the first paragraph of the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137
(Rule 137, Sec. 1, Par. 2, ROC).
There are no expressly enumerated grounds for voluntary inhibition and such is left to the sound
discretion of the judge (Rodolfo E. Parayno, et. al. v. Hon. Iluminado Meneses, et al, G.R. No.
112684, 1994).
The basis for voluntary inhibition should be based on just and valid reasons (Rodolfo E.
Parayno, et. al. v. Hon. Iluminado Meneses, et.al., G.R. No. 112684, 1994) ascertained by the
judge after a “rational and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case.”
(Antonia Gutang, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124760, 1998)
There is no hard and fast rule in determining when a judge should voluntarily inhibit himself,
such must be taken on a case to case basis. Voluntary inhibition is based on the sound
discretion and conscience of the judge, a subjective test that reviewing tribunals will not disturb
absent any showing of manifest arbitrariness or whimsicality as such judges are in the better
position to determine the issue on inhibition as they deal directly with the parties in their courts
(Antonia Gutang, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124760, 1998).
A judicial officer may voluntarily inhibit himself on the ground of delicadeza when a suggestion is
made on record that he might be induced to favor one party over the other or with bias or
prejudice against a litigant (Antonia Gutang, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124760,
1998).
In such cases, the judge must conduct self-examination and exercise his discretion in such a
way that the people’s faith in the courts are not impaired (Pimentel v. Salonga, G. R. No. 27934,
1967).
The judge must keep in mind a “salutary norm”, that his actions should not cause a losing party
to nurture at the back of his mind that the judge tilted the scales of justice against him (Pimentel
v. Salonga, G. R. No. 27934, 1967).
While inhibition is not allowed at every instance that a friend, classmate, associate or patron of a
judge appears before him as a counsel of record, a judge may inhibit himself on the ground of
fear that he is suspected of surrendering to or succumbing to “utang na loob” to counsel who
recommended him to his post (Query of Executive Judge Estrella T. Estrada, Regional Trial
Court of Malolos, Bulacan, on the conflicting views of Regional Trial Court – Judges Masadao
and Elizaga RE: Criminal Case No. 4954-M, A.M. No. 87-9-3918-RTC, 1987) – in extraordinary
cases when bias or prejudice is unavoidable (Basilio Palang v. Hon. Mariano Zosa, G.R. No. L-
38229, August 30, 1974). “Utang na loob”, per se, should not be a hindrance to the
administration of justice or serve to prevent a judge from doing his duties (Query of Executive
Judge Estrella T. Estrada, Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, on the conflicting views of
Regional Trial Court – Judges Masadao and Elizaga RE: Criminal Case No. 4954-M, A.M. No.
87-9-3918-RTC, 1987).
END OF TOPIC
POWERS AND DUTIES OF

COURTS AND JUDICIAL
OFFICERS
COURTS
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES:
1. Shall always be open for filing of any pleading, motion, or other papers, for the trial of
cases, hearing of motions, and for the issuance of orders or rendition of judgments.
2. Official business hours: 8:00am to 4:30pm.
a. Exception: Legal Holidays
3. Shall see to it the impartial administration of justice without unnecessary delay
4. Must be open to the public
a. Exception: Public may be excluded when, given the nature of the evidence to be
adduced, it is in the interest of morality or decency (Rule 135, Sec. 1, ROC).
RECORDS:
1. Shall be public records
2. Shall be available for the inspection of any interested person
a. Requirements:
i. Proper business hours
ii. Under the supervision of the clerk having custody of such records
b. Exception:
i. When the court forbids it in the interest of morality or decency.
ENFORCEABILITY OF PROCESS ISSUED
Superior Courts
Process issued may be enforced in any part of the Philippines:
1. When a case is pending to bring in a defendant

2. For the arrest of any accused person
3. To execute any order or judgment of the court (Rule 135, Sec. 3, ROC)
Inferior Courts
The process shall be enforceable within the province where the municipality or city lies. (Rule
135, Sec. 4, ROC)
EXCEPTIONS: With the approval of the judge of first instance of said province, and only in the
following cases (DA2C):
1. When an order for the Delivery of personal property lying outside the province is to be
complied with;
2. When an Attachment of real or personal property lying outside the province is to be made;
3. When the action is against two or more defendants residing in different provinces; and
4. When the place where the case has been brought is that specified in a Contract in writing
between the parties, or is the place of the execution of such contract as appears therefrom.
INHERENT POWER OF THE COURTS:
1. To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;

2. To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or persons empowered to
conduct a judicial investigation under its authority;
3. To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes, and to the lawful orders of
a judge out of court, in a case pending therein;
4. To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other
persons in any manner connected with a case before it, in every manner appertaining
thereto;
5. To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein;
6. To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case pending therein, and in all
other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers;
7. To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law
and justice; and,
8. To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other paper to be filed and used
instead of the original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its records and
proceedings (Rule 135, Sec. 5, ROC).
JURISDICTION
By law, jurisdiction is conferred. All auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to
carry it into effect may be employed by court or officer.
If it is not specifically pointed out by law, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be
adopted which appears comfortable to the spirit of the law or rules (Rule 135, Sec. 6, ROC).
TRIALS
1. Trial upon the merits – Shall be conducted in open court and so far as convenient in a
regular court room.
2. All other acts or proceeding – May be done or conducted by a judge in chambers, without
the attendance of the clerk or other court officials (Rule 135, Sec. 7, ROC)
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS OUT OF PROVINCE
Power to hear and determine any interlocutory motion or issue after due and reasonable notice
to the parties when within the district though without his province. The judge of CFI has the
power to choose any place, in the judicial district, for the hearing. In cases of filing of a petition
for the writ of habeas corpus. For release upon bail or reduction of bail in any Court of First
Instance (Rule 135, Sec. 8, ROC).
PREPARING AND SIGNING JUDGMENTS OUTSIDE THE PROVINCE
Instances:
o A judge leaves the province by transfer or assignment to another court of equal
jurisdiction or by expiration of his temporary assignment without having decided a case
totally heard by him and which was argued or an opportunity given for argument to the
parties
Procedure:
Send the judgment by registered mail to the clerk of the court where the case was heard
to be filed therein as of the date when the same was received by the clerk
o Without having decided a case partly heard by him.
Procedure: The Supreme Court may authorize to continue hearing and to decide:
Upon petition of any of the parties of the case or upon the recommendation of the
respective district judge if no other judge had heard the case in part.
END OF TOPIC
COURT RECORDS AND

GENERAL DUTIES OF
CLERKS AND
STENOGRAPHERS
CLERK OF COURT
The clerk of the Supreme Court and that of the Court of Appeals shall keep office at Manila and
all papers authorized or required shall be filed at Manila (Rule 136, Sec. 3, ROC)
The clerk's office shall be open during business hours on all days except Sundays and legal
holidays, with the clerk or his deputy in attendance.
General Duties (Rule 136, Sec. 5, ROC)
Issuance of process
To issue under the seal of the court all ordinary writs and process incident to pending cases, the
issuance of which does not involve the exercise of functions appertaining to the court or judge
only.
To make out and sign letters of administration, appointments of guardians, trustees and
receivers, and all writs and process issuing from the court under the direction of the court or
judge (Rule 136, Sec. 4, ROC).
Receive papers and prepare minutes:
1. To issue under the seal of the court all ordinary writs and process incident to pending
cases, the issuance of which does not involve the exercise of functions appertaining to
the court or judge only.
2. To receive and file all pleadings and other papers properly presented
3. To endorse on each paper the time when it was filed
4. To attend all of the sessions of the court and enter its proceedings for each day in a
minute book to be kept by him (Rule 136, Sec. 6, ROC).
Safekeeping of property
To safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to his charge,
including the library of the court, and the seal and furniture belonging to his office (Rule 136,
Sec. 7, ROC).
General docket
To keep a general docket, each page of which shall be numbered and prepared for receiving all
the entries in a single case
To enter all cases, numbered consecutively in the order in which they were received containing
the following:
1. Heading
2. Complete title
3. Date of each paper filed or issued, of each order or judgment entered, and of each other
step taken in the case
So that by reference to a single page the history of the case may be seen (Rule 136, Sec. 8,
ROC).
Judgment and entries book:
1. To keep a judgment book, containing a copy of each judgment rendered by the court in
order of its date.
2. To keep a book of entries of judgments containing at length in chronological order entries of
all final judgments or orders of the court.
Execution book
To keep an execution book in which he or his deputy shall record at length in chronological
order each execution, and the officer's return, by virtue of which real property has been sold
Certified copies
To prepare, for any person demanding the same, a copy certified under the seal of the court of
any paper, record, order, judgment, or entry in his office, proper to be certified, for the fees
prescribed by these rules (Rule 136, Sec. 11).
Other books and duties:
1. To keep such other books and perform such other duties as the court may direct (Rule
136, Sec. 12, ROC).
2. To demand that the stenographer comply with his duty to deliver all the notes he has
taken (Rule 136, Sec. 17, ROC).
3. The clerk shall stamp the date upon receipt of notes (Rule 136, Sec. 17, ROC).
Index; Separating cases
The general docket, judgment book, entries book and execution book shall each be indexed in
alphabetical order in the names of the parties, and each of them.
If the court so directs, the clerk shall keep two or more of either or all of the books and dockets
above mentioned, separating civil from criminal cases, or actions from special proceedings, or
otherwise keeping cases separated by classes as the court shall deem best (Rule 136, Sec. 13,
ROC).
Taking of record from the clerk's office
GENERAL RULE: No record shall be taken from the clerk's office without an order of the court
except as otherwise provided by these rules.
EXCEPTIONS: The following shall be permitted, upon proper receipt, to withdraw from the
clerk's office the record of any cases in which they are interested:
1. Solicitor General or any of his assistants
2. Provincial fiscal or his deputy
3. Attorneys de oficio (Rule 136, Sec. 14, ROC)
Unprinted papers
All unprinted documents presented to the superior courts of the Philippines:
1. Shall be written on paper of good quality (12x3in in length, twelve and three eight inches
in length by eight and one-half inches in width, leaving a margin at the top and at the left-
hand side not less than one inch and one-half in width.
2. Papel catalan, of the first and second classes, legal cap, and typewriting paper of such
weight as not to permit the writing of more than one original and two carbons at one
time, will be accepted, provided that such paper is of the required size and of good
quality.
3. Documents written with ink shall not be of more than twenty-five lines to one page.
4. Typewritten documents shall be written double-spaced.
5. One side only of the page will be written upon, and the different sheets will be sewn
together, firmly, by five stitches in the left-hand border in order to facilitate the formation
of the expedients, and they must not be doubled.
Printed papers
All papers required by these rules to be printed shall be printed with blank ink on unglazed
paper, with pages six inches in width by nine inches in length, in pamphlet form. The type used
shall not be smaller than twelve point. The paper used shall be of sufficient weight to prevent
the printing upon one side from being visible upon the other (Rule 136, Sec. 16, ROC).
Efficient Use of Paper Rule (A.M. no. 11-9-4-SC)
Date of Effectivity: January 1, 2013

 All pleadings, motions, and similar papers intended for the court and quasi-judicial
body's consideration and action (court-bound papers) shall be written in single space
with a one-and-a-half space between paragraphs, using an easily readable font style of
the party's choice, of 14-size font, and on a 13-inch by 8.5-inch white bond paper.
 All decisions, resolutions, and orders issued by courts and by quasi-judicial bodies under
the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court shall comply with these
requirements. Similarly covered are the reports submitted to the courts and transcripts of
stenographic notes. (Sec. 3)
 The parties shall maintain the following margins on all court-bound papers: a left hand
margin of 1.5 inches from the edge; an upper margin of 1.2 inches from the edge; a right
hand margin of 1.0 inch from the edge; and a lower margin of 1.0 inch from the edge.
Every page must be consecutively numbered. (Sec. 4)
STENOGRAPHER (Rules 136, Sec. 17, ROC)
General Duties:
1. The stenographer shall deliver to the clerk of court all the notes he has taken, immediately
at the close of such morning or afternoon session.
2. When such notes are transcribed, the transcript shall be delivered to the clerk, within 20
days from date of the hearing, duly initialed on each page thereof, to be attached to the
record of the case.
3. Whenever requested by a party, any statement made by a judge of first instance, or by a
commissioner, with reference to a case being tried by him, or to any of the parties thereto, or
to any witness or attorney, during the hearing of such case, shall be made of record in the
stenographic notes.
Docket and other records of inferior courts
Every municipal or city judge shall keep a well-bound book labeled "docket," in which he shall
enter for each case:
1. Title of the case including the names of all the parties

2. Nature of the case, whether civil or criminal, and if the latter, the offense charged
3. Date of issuing preliminary and intermediate process including orders of arrest and
subpoenas, and the date and nature of the return thereon
4. Date of the appearance or default of the defendant
5. Date of presenting the plea, answer, or motion to quash, and the nature of the same
6. Minutes of the trial, including the date thereof and of all adjournments
7. Names and addresses of all witnesses
8. Date and nature of the judgment, and, in a civil case, the relief granted
9. Itemized statement of the costs
10. Date of any execution issued, and the date and contents of the return thereon
11. Date of any notice of appeal filed, and the name of the party filing the same (Rule 136,
Sec. 18, ROC).
A municipal or city judge may keep two dockets, one for civil and one for criminal cases. He
shall also keep all the pleading and other papers and exhibits in cases pending in his court, and
shall certify copies of his docket entries and other records proper to be certified, for the fees
prescribed by these rules.
It shall not be necessary for the municipal or city judge to reduce to writing the testimony of
witnesses, except that of the accused in preliminary investigations.
Each Metropolitan Trial judge shall, at the beginning and in front of all his entries in his docket,
make and subscribe substantially the following entry:
"A docket of proceedings in cases before ___________, (metropolitan trial judge) of the
municipality (or city) of ______, in the province of ___________, Republic of the Philippines.
Witness my signature,
__________________________
“Municipal (or Metropolitan Trial Judge)” (Rule 136, Sec. 19, ROC)
ARMS AND GREAT SEAL OF COURT
Arms
Paleways of two pieces azure and gules super-imposed a balance or center with two tablets

containing the commandments of God or on either side; a chief argent with three
mullets or equidistant from each other; in point of honor, ovoid argent over all the sun rayonnant
or with eight major and minor rays (Rules 136, Sec. 1 as amended, ROC).
Seal of Court
The great seal of the Supreme Court shall be circular in form, with the arms as described in the
last preceding paragraph and a scroll argent with the following inscriptions: Lex Populusque,
and surrounding the whole a garland of laurel leaves in or; around the garland the text
‘Supreme Court, Republic of the Philippines.’ (Rules 136, Sec. 1 as amended, ROC)
The arms and seal of the Court of Appeals
Same as that of the Supreme Court only that in the seal shall bear around the garland the text
‘Court of Appeals, Republic of the Philippines.’
The arms and seal of the Regional Trial Court
Same as that of the Supreme Court only that in the seal shall bear around the garland the text
‘Regional Trial Court, the name of the province, Republic of the Philippines.’”
Style of process
The style of process shall be under the seal of the court from which it issues, be styled
"Republic of the Philippines, Province of _____________________" to be signed by the clerk
and bear date the day it actually issued (Rule 136, Sec. 2, ROC).
END OF TOPIC
LEGAL FEES
MANNER OF PAYMENT
GENERAL RULE: Jurisdiction over any case is acquired only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fee which is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Consequently, failure to pay
the requisite docket fees will result in the dismissal of the case (Home Guaranty Corporation v.
R-II Builders Inc., G.R. No. 192649, 2011).
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket
fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case
beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar
pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed
therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time
but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment
awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for
determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the
judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy
to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee (Sun Insurance Office, Ltd.
v. Hon. Asuncion, G.R. No. 79937-38, 1989).
A.M. No. 00-2-01-S
Resolution Amending Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court
Date of Effectivity: March 21, 2000
GENERAL RULE: All parties to an action must pay fees prescribed in full, upon filing of the
pleading or other application, which initiates and action or proceeding (Rule 141, Sec. 1, ROC).
EXCEPTIONS:
Government - The Republic of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities, are
exempt from paying the legal fees provided in this rule (Rule 141, Sec. 21, ROC).
Exception to the Exception: Local governments and government-owned or controlled
corporations with or without independent charters (Rule 141, Sec. 21, ROC).
INDIGENT LITIGANTS
1. whose gross income and that of their immediate family do not exceed four thousand
(P4,000.00) pesos a month if residing in Metro Manila, and three thousand (P3,000.00)
pesos a month if residing outside Metro Manila, and who do not own real property with
an assessed value of more than fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos shall be exempt from
the payment of legal fees.
2. To be entitled to the exemption, the litigant shall execute an affidavit that he and his
immediate family does not earn a gross income abovementioned, nor they own any
real property with the assessed value aforementioned. It must be supported by an
affidavit of a disinterested person attesting to the truth of the litigant's affidavit.
3. Any falsity in the affidavit of a litigant or disinterested person shall be sufficient cause to
strike out the pleading of that party, without prejudice to whatever criminal liability may
have been incurred (Rule 141, Sec. 18, ROC).
HOWEVER, if the trial court finds that one or both requirements under Section 19 of Rule 141
have not been met, the applicant may still qualify as an indigent-litigant under Rule 3, Section
21. For this purpose, the applicant must prove that he “has no money or property sufficient and
available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.” In that hearing, the
adverse party may adduce countervailing evidence to disprove the evidence presented the
applicant. In addition, the adverse party may still contest such grant any time before judgment is
rendered, possibly based on newly discovered evidence (Spouses Algura v. Naga, G.R. No.
150135, 2006).
FEES IN LIEN
Party concerned shall pay the additional fees, which shall constitute a lien on the judgment in
satisfaction of the lien, when the court in its final judgment awards:
1. A claim not alleged, or
2. A relief different from, or more than that claimed in the pleading. (Rule 141, Sec. 2,
ROC).
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT LEGAL FEES:
1. Clerks of the Court of Appeals and of the Supreme Court (Rule 141, Sec. 4, ROC);
2. Clerks of Regional Trial Court (Rule 141, Sec. 7, ROC);
3. Clerks of the Courts of the First Level (Rule 141, Sec. 8, ROC);
4. Sheriffs and other persons serving processes (Rule 141, Sec. 9, ROC);
5. Stenographers (Rule 141, Sec. 10, ROC);
6. Notaries (Rule 141, Sec. 11, ROC);
7. Other officers taking depositions (Rule 141, Sec. 12, ROC);
8. Witness (Rule 141, Sec. 13, ROC);
9. Appraisers (Rule 141, Sec. 14, ROC);
10. Commissioners in eminent domain proceedings (Rule 141, Sec. 15, ROC);
11. Commissioners in proceedings for partition of real state (Rule 141, Sec. 16, ROC).
END OF TOPIC
COSTS
RECOVERY OF COSTS
PREVAILING PARTY
Costs ordinarily follow results of suit.
General rule: Cost shall be allowed to the prevailing party as a matter of course. The court has
the power, for special reasons, to adjudge that either party shall pay the costs of an action, or
that the same be divided, as may be equitable
Exception: When the rules provide otherwise (Rule 142, Sec. 1, ROC).
No costs shall be allowed against the Republic of the Philippine except when the law provides
otherwise.
Dismissed appeal or action
The court shall have the power to render judgment for cost, as justice may require, even when
action or appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction or otherwise (Rule 142, Sec. 2, ROC).
Frivolous appeal
Where an action or appeal is found to be frivolous, double or treble cost may be imposed on the
plaintiff or appellant, which shall be paid by his attorney, if so ordered by the court (Rule 142,
Sec. 3, ROC).
False allegations
An averment in a pleading made without reasonable cause and found untrue shall subject the
offending party to the payment of such reasonable expenses as may have been necessarily
incurred by the other party by reason of such untrue pleading. The amount of expenses so
payable shall be fixed by the judge in the trial, and taxed as costs. No cost for preparing,
certifying, or printing of unnecessary, irrelevant or immaterial matters (Rule 142, Sec. 5, ROC).
No attorney's fees shall be taxed as costs against the adverse party, except as provided by the
rules of civil law. This shall have no relation to the fees to be charged by an attorney as against
his client (Rule 142, Sec. 6, ROC).
If the plaintiff in any action shall recover a sum not exceeding ten pesos as debt or damages, he
shall recover no more cost than debt or damages, unless the court shall certify that the action
involved a substantial and important right to the plaintiff in which case full cost may be allowed
Non-appearance of witness
If a witness fails to appear at the time and place specified in the subpoena issued by any inferior
court, the cost of the warrant of arrest and of the arrest of the witness shall be paid by the
witness if the court shall determine that his failure to answer the subpoena was willful or without
just excuse (Rule 142, Sec. 12, ROC).
How to Tax Costs

1. In inferior courts, the costs shall be taxed by the justice of the peace or municipal judge
and included the judgment.
2. In superior courts, costs shall be taxed by the clerk of the corresponding court on five
days' written notice giving by the prevailing party to the adverse party.
3. With this notice shall be served a statement of the items of the cost claimed by the
prevailing party, verified by his oath or that of his attorney.
4. Objections to the taxation shall be made in writing, specifying the items objected to.
5. Either party may appeal to the court from the clerk's taxation.
6. The costs shall be inserted in the judgment if taxed before its entry, and payment thereof
shall be enforced by execution (Rule 142, Sec. 8, ROC).
Costs in Justice of the Peace or Municipal Courts
The prevailing party may recover the following cost, and no other:
1. For the complaint or answer, two pesos;

2. For the attendance of himself, or his counsel, or both, on the day of trial, five pesos;
3. For each additional day's attendance required in the actual trial of the case, one peso;
4. For each witness produced by him, for each day's necessary attendance at the trial, one
peso, and his lawful traveling fees;
5. For each deposition lawfully taken by him and produced in evidence, five pesos;
6. For original documents, deeds, or papers of any kind produced by him; nothing;
7. For official copies of such documents, deeds, or papers, the lawful fees necessarily paid
for obtaining such copies;
8. The lawful fees paid by him for service of the summons and other process in the action;
9. The lawful fees charged against him by the judge of the court in entering and docketing
and trying the action or proceeding (Rule 142, Sec. 9, ROC).
Costs in Court of First Instance or the Regional Trial Court
The prevailing party may recover the following costs, and no other:
1. For the complaint or answer, fifteen pesos;

2. For his own attendance, and that of his attorney, down to and including final judgment,
twenty pesos;
3. For each witness necessarily produced by him, for each day's necessary attendance of
such witness at the trial, two pesos, and his lawful traveling fees;
4. For each deposition lawfully taken by him, and produced in evidence, five pesos
5. For original documents, deeds, or papers of any kind produced by him, nothing
6. For official copies of such documents, deeds, or papers, the lawful fees necessarily paid
for obtaining such copies;
7. The lawful fees paid by him in entering and docketing the action or recording the
proceedings, for the service of any process in action, and all lawful clerk's fees paid by
him (Rule 142, Sec. 10, ROC).
Costs in Court of Appeals and in Supreme Court
The prevailing party may recover the following costs, and no other:
1. For his own attendance, and that of his attorney, down to and including final judgment,
thirty pesos in the Court of Appeals and fifty pesos in the Supreme Court;
2. For official copies of record on appeal and the printing thereof, and all other copies
required by the rules of court, the sum actually paid for the same;
3. All lawful fees charged against him by the clerk of the Court of Appeals or of the
Supreme Court, in entering and docketing the action and recording the proceedings and
judgment therein and for the issuing of all process;
4. No allowance shall be made to the prevailing party in the Supreme Court or Court of
Appeals for the brief or written or printed arguments of his attorney, or copies thereof,
aside from the thirty or fifty pesos above stated;
5. If testimony is received in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals not taken in another
court and transmitted thereto, the prevailing party shall be allowed the same cost for
witness fees, depositors, and process and service thereof as he would have been
allowed for such items had the testimony been introduced in a Court of First Instance;
6. The lawful fees of a commissioner in an action may also be taxed against the defeated
party, or apportioned as justice requires (Rule 142, Sec. 10, ROC).
OTHER COSTS
Costs when witness fails to appear at the time and place specified in the subpoena issued by
any inferior court:
1. The cost of the warrant of arrest and of the arrest of the witness shall be paid by the
witness if the court shall determine that his failure to answer the subpoena was willful or
without just excuse (Rule 142, Sec. 12, ROC).
2. Costs when the person cited for examination in probate proceedings. The court may, in
its discretion tax costs for the person so cited and issue execution therefor, allowing the
same fees as for witnesses in Courts of First Instance (Rule 142, ROC).
END OF TOPIC
III. PRACTICAL EXERCISES

A. Preliminary Discussion
B. Quitclaims in Labor Cases
C. Simple Contracts – Lease, Sale of Realty or Personal Property
D. Promissory Note
E. Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping
F. Notice of Hearing (All levels)
G. Affidavits and Explanation
I. Additional Legal Forms (for Reference)
A. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION
[This Section covers the basics of forms in terms of notarial law, as most legal forms will contain
some form of notarial act.]
1. NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE; DEFINED
"Notarial Certificate" refers to the part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document
that is:
1. Completed by the notary public;
2. Bears the notary's signature and seal; and
3. States the facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization as provided for by
these Rules.
(Rule II, Sec. 8 of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice)
The notarial certificate shall include the following:

 The name of the notary public as exactly indicated in the commission;
 The serial number of the commission of the notary public;
 The words "Notary Public" and the province or city where the notary public is commissioned,
the expiration date of the commission, the office address of the notary public; and
 The roll of attorney's number, the professional tax receipt (PTR) number and the place and
date of issuance thereof, and the IBP membership number.
(Rule VIII, Sec. 2 of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice)
2. FORM: NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE
[Signature of Notary Public]
JOSIAH LEE
Notary Public for Makati City
Appointment No. 234 until Dec. 31, 2019
874 Swallow St., Makati City
Roll No. 12345
IBP No. 225; issued Jan. 2, 2017; IBP
Makati Chapter
PTR No. 24; issued Jan. 3, 2017; Makati
City
Memory Aid: NNoVADARIP

Name
Notary Public forVenue
Appointment No.
Date of expiry
Address/Regular Place of Work or Business
Roll No.
IBP No.
PTR No.
Notarial acts executed by a notary public always feature the above notarial certificate. (Rule II,
Sec. 8 of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice)
3. JURAT; DEFINED
“Jurat” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
3. signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
4. takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.
(Rule II, Section 6 of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice)
4. FORM: JURAT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

CITY OF MAKATI ) S.S.
JURAT
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a

Notary Public in and for Makati City, affiant
exhibiting to me her Passport issued at DFA
Manila and expiring on November 20, 2020,
who was identified by me through
competent evidence of identity to be the
same person who presented the foregoing
instrument signed the instrument in my
presence, and who took an oath before me
as to such instrument.
Witness my hand and seal this 14th day of

December 2017.
Doc. No. ;
Page No. ; [INSERT NOTARIAL
Book No. ; CERTIFICATE]
Series of 2017.
5. OATH OR AFFIRMATION; DEFINED

The term “Affirmation” or “Oath” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
1. appears in person before the notary public;
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
3. avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument or document.
6. FORM: OATH OR AFFIRMATION

OATH
Sworn to before me this 27th day of June,

2017, in Makati City, Philippines, John Doe
exhibiting to me his Passport issued at DFA
Manila and expiring on November 20, 2020,
who was identified by me through
competent evidence of identity to be the
same person who presented the foregoing
instrument and avowed, under penalty of
law, to the whole truth of its contents.

December 2017.
Doc. No. ;
Series of 2017.
7. COPY CERTIFICATION; DEFINED

“Copy Certification” refers to a notarial act in which a notary public:
1. is presented with an instrument or document that is neither a vital record, a public record,
nor publicly recordable;
2. copies or supervises the copying of the instrument or document;
3. compares the instrument or document with the copy; and
4. determines that the copy is accurate and complete.
8. FORM: COPY CERTIFICATION


COPY CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that I was presented with

an instrument entitled “Deed of Sale” which
is neither a vital record, a public record, nor
publicly recordable; that I copied the
instrument; and that I compared the copied
instrument with the original copy and I
hereby certify that the copy is accurate and
complete.
Doc. No. ;
Series of 2017.
9. ACKNOWLEDGMENT; DEFINED
"Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:

1. appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument
or document;
2. is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
3. represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was
voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares
that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed,
and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that
capacity.
An individual must present his or her community tax certificate (CTC) when he or she
acknowledges a document before a notary public. Thus, the CTC number, among other details
retailed to such CTC, must be stated in the acknowledgment. (Local Government Code, Sec.
163)
Documents acknowledged before notary publics (except last wills and testaments) are
considered public documents under the Rules of Evidence, and may be presented in evidence
without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
execution of the instrument or document involved. (Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 30)
10. FORM: ACKNOWLEDGMENT

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Before me, a Notary Public in and for Makati

City, personally appeared John Doe, with
CTC No. 213, issued by the City of Makati
on January 10, 2017, exhibiting to me his
Passport issued at DFA Manila and expiring
on November 20, 2020, who was identified
by me through competent evidence of
identity to be the same person who
presented the foregoing instrument and
affirmed that such instrument is his free and
voluntary act and deed.

December 2017.
Doc. No. ;
Series of 2017.
10. COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY; DEFINED
The phrase “competent evidence of identity” refers to the identification of an individual based
on:
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual; or
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or
transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the
individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document ,
or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public
documentary identification.
Examples of Competent Evidence of Identity include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Passport
2. Driver’s license
3. Professional Regulations Commission ID
4. National Bureau of Investigation clearance
5. Police clearance
6. Postal ID
7. Voter’s ID
8. Barangay certification
9. Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card
10. Social Security System (SSS) card
11. Philhealth card
12. Senior citizen card
13. Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID
14. OFW ID
15. Seaman’s book
16. Alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration
17. Government office ID
18. Certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disable Persons (NCWDP),
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification.
(A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, 2008)
Note that competent evidence of identity is needed only when the principal requesting that the
notary public perform the notarial act is not personally known to the notary public; if the notary
public personally knows the principal, the notary must say so in the notarized document, instead
of providing for the details of the principal’s competent evidence of identity. (Rule II, Secs. 1, 2,
4, 6, 14, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice)
B. QUITCLAIMS IN LABOR CASES
1. APPLICABLE RULES
A quitclaim is valid if the employer is able to prove the following requisites:

1. The employee executes a deed of quitclaim voluntarily
2. There is no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties
3. The consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable
4. The contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good
customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
(Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. Arguilla, G.R. No. 143542, 2006)
2. FORM: WAIVER OR QUITCLAIM
WAIVER/QUITCLAIM
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That I, Mary Sue, Filipino, of legal age, a

resident of #6 Esteban Abada Katipunan,
Quezon City, and formerly employed with
Merry Mary Corporation, do by these
presents acknowledge receipt of the sum of
P690,000.00, Philippine Currency, as final
settlement of the [financial assistance or
separation pay, overtime pay, salary or
salaries, wage or wages, commutable sick
and vacation leaves, gratutities or any kind
of compensation or emoluments] due to me
or which may be due to me by the Company
under the law or under any existing
agreement with respect thereto, as well as
any and all claims of whatever kind and
nature which I have or may have against the
Company.
In return, I do hereby quitclaim, release,

discharge and waive any and all actions of
whatever nature, expected, real or
apparent, which I may have against the
Company, its directors, officers, employees,
agents, and clients by reason of or arising
from my employment with the company. I
will institute no action, whether civil,
criminal, labor, or administrative against
Merry Mary Corporation, its directors,
officers, employees, agents, and clients.
Any pending action relating to such shall be
considered voluntarily withdrawn.
I declare that I have read this document and

have fully understood its contents. I further
declare that I voluntarily and willingly
executed this Release, Waiver and
Quitclaim with full knowledge of my rights
under the law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto

set my hand at Quezon City, this 6th day of
March, 2017.

MARY SUE
Affiant
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
(Sgd.) WIT 1
(Sgd.) WIT 2
[INSERT JURAT]
C. SIMPLE CONTRACTS
1. GENERAL TEMPLATE
[NAME OF CONTRACT]
This [Name of Contract] (“Agreement”) is

entered into this [day] day of [Month] [Year]
at [Place], between:
[FIRST PARTY]
and
[SECOND PARTY]
(The First Party and the Second Party are

hereinafter collectively referred to as the
“Parties”)
WITNESSETH: That –
WHEREAS:
A.
B.
C.
NOW, WHEREFORE, premises considered,

the Parties hereby agree as follows:
[BODY OF CONTRACT]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have

entered into this Agreement on the day and
the year first above written.
FIRST PARTY SECOND PARTY
By: By:
_______________ _______________
____________ ____________
Witnessed by:
_______________ _______________
______________ ______________
[INSERT ACKNOWLEDGMENT]
2. SPECIAL RULES FOR TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING REAL PROPERTY
For transactions involving real rights to be enforceable, they must be in writing and subscribed
by the parties charged. As a general rule, evidence of the agreement cannot be received
without the writing. (Civil Code, Art. 1403 (2) (e))
A contract involving real rights which is in writing and subscribed by the parties, but is not found
in a public instrument, is valid. Thus, as a general rule, a defective notarization does not affect
the validity of a contract. However, the instrument becomes a private instrument which must be
proved following the rules in Sections 20-22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. (Teoco v.
Metrobank, G.R. No. 162333, 2008)
For deeds, conveyances, encumbrances, discharges, powers of attorney and other voluntary
instruments involving real property to be registrable with the Register of Deeds, the Property
Registration Decree requires the following:
1. The transaction must be contained in a public instrument
2. The instrument must be signed by the person/s executing the same in the presence of at
least two witnesses, who shall likewise sign it,
3. The instrument must be acknowledged to be the free act and deed of the person/s executing
the same before a notary public or other authorized public officer
4. Where the instrument consists of two or more pages, including the page whereon
acknowledgment is written, each page of the copy which is to be registered, except the page
where the signatures already appear at the foot of the instrument, shall be signed on the left
margin by the person/s executing the instrument and their witnesses, and all the pages
sealed with the notarial seal, and this fact as well as the number of pages shall be stated in
the acknowledgment.
5. Where the instrument acknowledged relates to a sale, transfer, mortgage or encumbrance
of two or more parcels of land, the number thereof shall likewise be set forth in said
acknowledgment. (P.D. 1529, Sec. 112)
3. FORM: DEED OF SALE OF REAL PROPERTY

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE
I, LOU GAW, Filipino, single, and resident of

Makati City, for and in consideration of the
amount of P10,000,000.00, paid to me
today by CUTE SHAH, Filipino, single and
resident of Makati City, do hereby SELL,
TRANSFER, and CONVEY absolute and
unconditionally unto said CUTE SHAH
certain parcel(s) of land, together with the
buildings and improvements thereon
situated in the City of Makati, and more

particularly described as follows:
(Technical Description of property;

specify metes and bounds of the
property with approximate area
thereof, as indicated on the face of
the title)
of which I am the registered owner in fee

simple, my title thereto being evidenced by
Transfer (or Original) Certificate of Title No.
223, issued by the Register of Deeds of
Makati City.
It is hereby mutually agreed that the vendee

shall bear all expenses for the execution
and registration of this deed of sale.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this

deed this 9th day of March, 2017 at Makati
City.
LOU GAW
Vendor
[Note: If the vendor is married, marital

consent must be secured; thus, the Deed
must also indicate this. If vendor is married,
then add the following:]
With my consent:
GANDA KHO
Vendor’s Wife
(Sgd.) WIT 1
(Sgd.) WIT 2
[Note: If the instrument conveys 2 or more

parcels of land, pursuant to the Property
Registration Decree, include the following
after the first paragraph in the
acknowledgment:]
This instrument relates to the sale (or

mortgage) of 2 parcels of land, and consists
of 2 pages including the page on which this
acknowledgment is written, each and every
page of which, on the left margin, having
been signed by LOU GAW and her
witnesses, and sealed with my Notarial seal.
4. SPECIAL RULES CONCERNING THE CONTRACT OF LEASE
For a contract of lease lasting more than a period of one year and transactions involving real
rights to be enforceable, they must be in writing and subscribed by the parties charged. As a
general rule, evidence of the agreement cannot be received without the writing. (Civil Code, Art.
1403 (2) (e))
5. FORM: CONTRACT OF LEASE
CONTRACT OF LEASE
This Agreement made and entered into at

Makati this 7th day of July 2017 by and
between DIANA DESIRABLE, of legal age,
married to ASA KA (LESSOR), and resident
of Makati City, and ALAN DY, of legal age,
single and resident of Quezon City
(LESSEE), WITNESSETH that:
1. In consideration of a monthly rental of

P23,000.00 and the covenants made below,
the LESSOR hereby LEASES to the
LESSEE an apartment located at 52 Sorrow
Street, Makati City covered by Tax
Declaration No. 005 (Makati City Assessor’s
Office) for a period of 12 MONTHS from
signing of this contract.
2. The LESSEE covenants, as follows:
2.1. To pay the rentals on or before the fifth

day of each month, without need of demand
at the residence of LESSOR;
2.2. To keep the premises in good and
habitable condition, making the necessary
repairs and painting inside and outside the
house;
2.3. Not to make major alterations and
improvements without the written consent of
the LESSOR and in the event of such

unauthorized major alterations and
improvements, surrendering ownership over
such improvements and alterations to the
LESSOR upon expiration of this lease;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have

signed this contract on the date and the
place first mentioned.
DIANA DESIRABLE
Lessor
With my consent:
ASA KA
ALAN DY
Lessee
6. SPECIAL RULES FOR SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
General Rule: An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels, or things in action, at a price not
less than P500, must be in writing, or else it is unenforceable. (Civil Code, Art. 1403 (2) (d))
Exceptions:
 If the buyer accepts and receives part of such goods and chattels, or the evidences,
or some of them, of such things in action or pay at the time some part of the
purchase money, the contract becomes enforceable.
 When a sale is made by auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his sales
book, at the time of the sale, of the amount and kind of property sold, terms of sale,
price, names of the purchasers and person on whose account the sale is made, then
the sale is also enforceable. (Civil Code, Art. 1403 (2) (d))
7. FORM: DEED OF SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
DEED OF SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLE

That I, VALERIE VEE, Filipino, of legal age,
a resident of 32 Viller Street, Makaty City,
am the lawful owner of a certain motor
vehicle which is more particularly described
as follows:
[INSERT DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE,

NORMALLY MODEL, MAKE, COLOR,
PLATE NUMBER AND REGISTRATION
NO.]
That for and in consideration of the sum of

Amount in P2,000,000.000.00, Philippine
Currency, receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged to my entire satisfaction, I
hereby sell, transfer and convey by way of
Absolute Sale unto PIPER LEE, Filipino, of
legal age, and resident of 23 Sundance
Lane, Quezon City, the above described
motor vehicle, free from all liens and
encumbrances.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have

hereunto affixed our hands this 2nd day of
February at Mandaluyong City.

VALERIE VEE
Seller
PIPER LEE
Buyer
(Sgd.) WIT 1
(Sgd.) WIT 2
8. FORM: SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT
SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT
That the undersigned, Juan Dela Cruz,

Filipino, and with address at 123 Salcedo
Village, Makati City (the “SUBSCRIBER”)
hereby subscribes to Five Thousand (5,000)
shares of the common capital stock of ABC
Corporation (the “CORPORATION”), a
corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the Philippines, and with
address at 123 Rockwell Drive, Makati City,
at a subscription price of P100.00 per share,

or a total subscription price of P500,000.00,
payable as follows:
 P300,000 upon execution of this

Agreement;
 P100,000 on 6th of May 2017;
 P100,000 on 6th of May 2018.
Except as otherwise indicated above,

subscriptions shall be payable at any time
upon call by the Board of Directors of the
CORPORATION. Subscriptions not paid on
due date shall be subject to interest at 6%
per annum from due date until fully paid,
without prejudice to the right of the
CORPORATION to declare the same
delinquent in accordance with the
Corporation Code of the Philippines and to
all other rights available to the
CORPORATION under the law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have

caused these presents to be signed on the
10th of June of 2017, in the City of Makati.
CORPORATION: SUBSCRIBER:
ABC Corporation Juan Dela Cruz
TIN 12345 TIN 12345
_______________ _______________
____________ ____________
(Sgd.) WIT 1
(Sgd.) WIT 2
D. PROMISSORY NOTE
1. DEFINITION
A promissory note is a genuine document acknowledging a loan duly received and promising to
pay the same on the date indicated in accordance with the conditions therein set forth. (Sierra
v. CA, G.R. No. 90270, 1992)
2. REQUIRED FORM OF PROMISSORY NOTES
A promissory note must conform to the following requisites: (PO2W)

1. Must contain an unconditional Promise to pay a sum certain in money
2. Must be payable On demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time
3. Must be payable to Order or to bearer
4. It must be in Writing and signed by the maker (Negotiable Instruments Law, Sec. 1)
3. FORM: PROMISSORY NOTE
PROMISSORY NOTE
For value received, WE, JUAN DE LA

CRUZ, & JUANA DE LA CRUZ, hereby
promise to pay Mr. Jose Rizal, his heirs and
assigns or order, the sum of P65,000.00,
Philippine Currency, on or before October 8,
2018 at his residence in Makati City.
In case of default, we will shoulder all

expenses incurred in the collection and
attorney's fees of P1,000.00 plus an interest
of 6% per annum.
(Sgd.) JUAN DE LA CRUZ

(Sgd.) JUANA DE LA CRUZ
September 8, 2017
Makati City
E. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
1. VERIFICATION
General Rule: Pleadings need not be verified. (Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 4)
Exception: When explicitly required by law or the Rules of Court. (Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec.
4)
Some Examples of Verified Pleadings:

 All pleadings under the Rules of Summary Procedure (Rules of Summary Procedure, Rule
II, Sec. 3 (B))
 Petition for a notarial commission (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule III, Sec. 2)
 Petition for Adoption (Rule on Adoption, Domestic Adoption, Sec. 7)
 As a general rule, pleadings where there is a specific denial under oath of an actionable
document (Rules of Court, Rule 8, Sec. 8)
 Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings (Rules of Court, Rule 38, Sec.
1)
 Petition for relief from denial of appeal (Rules of Court, Rule 38, Sec. 1)
How Done: A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that
the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic
records. (Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 4, as amended)
How Not Done: A pleading required to be verified shall be treated as an unsigned pleading
when:
 It contains a verification based on "information and belief," or upon "knowledge,
information and belief," or
 It lacks a proper verification. (Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 4)
2. FORM: VERIFICATION (IN GENERAL)
VERIFICATION
I, Bebot Mariano, of legal age, after having

been duly sworn in accordance with law, do
hereby depose and state that:
1. I am the plaintiff in the pleading entitled

“Petition for Relief from Judgment.”
2. I have caused its preparation.
3. I have read it and the allegations therein
are true and correct based on my
personal knowledge or based on
authentic records.

verification on 19 May 2017.
(Sgd.)
BEBOT MARIANO
[INSERT JURAT]
3. FORM: VERIFICATION (SPECIFIC DENIAL UNDER OATH OF AN ACTIONABLE

DOCUMENT UNDER RULE 8, SEC. 8)
VERIFICATION
I, YOKO ONO, of legal age, do hereby

depose and state that:
1. I am the defendant in the case filed by

PAUL MCCARTNEY for ejectment;
2. In response, I have caused the

preparation of this Answer with
Counterclaim;
3. I have read its contents and affirm that
they are true and correct to the best of
my own personal knowledge;
4. I specifically deny the genuineness and
due execution as well as the binding
effect of the actionable documents
pleaded by plaintiiff;

verification on 19 May 2017.
(Sgd.)
YOKO ONO
[INSERT JURAT]
4. CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
In the certification against forum shopping, the plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath
(1) in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or (2) in a sworn
certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
1. That he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein;
2. If there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and
3. If he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within 5 days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. (Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 5)
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall

 NOT be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading
 Shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing. (Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 5)
VERIFICATION CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM
SHOPPING
If signed by the If signed by the
wrong party, this is wrong party, this is
a formal defect a substantive
defect
Does not General Rule:
necessarily render Not curable despite
the pleading fatally subsequent
defective. submission or
correction thereof
The court may
order its Exception:
submission or When there is a
correction or act on need to relax the
the pleading if the Rule on the ground
attending of "substantial
circumstances are compliance" or
such that strict presence of
compliance with the "special
Rule may be circumstances or
dispensed with in compelling reasons
order that the ends
of justice may be
served thereby.
Executed by the General Rule:
party-pleader Must be executed
by the party-
pleader, not by his
counsel.
Exception:
If there are
reasonable or
justifiable reasons,
& the party-pleader
is unable to sign,
he must execute a
Special Power of
Attorney
designating his
counsel of record to
sign on his behalf.
(Vda. de Formosa v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 154704, 2011 & Fuji Television
Network v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 204944-45, 2014)
General Rule: The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or
petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case.
Exception: Under reasonable and justifiable circumstances, when all the plaintiffs or petitioners
share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of
only one of them in the certification is substantial compliance with the Rules. One example of
such a situation would be co-ownership by family members of a specific property. (Vda. de
Formosa v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 154704, 2011)
5. FORM: CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM

SHOPPING
I, Sunny Shine, of legal age, after having

been duly sworn in accordance with law, do
hereby depose and state that:
1. I am the plaintiff in the case entitled
Shine v. Spine;
2. I hereby certify that I have not
commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issues before
any other court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency;
3. To the best of my knowledge, there is
no such pending action or claim;
4. If I should learn that a similar action or
claim has been filed or is pending, I
shall report such fact within 5 days from
the discovery to this Honorable Court.

certification on 19 May 2017.
(Sgd.)
SUNNY SHINE
[INSERT JURAT]
7. SPECIAL RULES GOVERNING VERIFICATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS AGAINST

FORUM SHOPPING OF CORPORATIONS
General Rule: To validly sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping of a
corporation, corporate officers must attach either the board resolution authorizing them, or the
Corporate Secretary’s Certificate. (Mid-Pasig Land Development Co. v. Tablante, G.R. No.
162924, 2010)
Exception: Jurisprudence has held that the following officials or employees of the company can
sign the verification and certification without need of a board resolution:
 The Chairperson of the Board of Directors
 The President of a corporation
 The General Manager or Acting General Manager
 Personnel Officer
 An Employment Specialist, if what is involved is a labor case. (Fuji Television Network v.
Espiritu, G.R. No. 204944-45, 2014)
8. FORM: VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING OF A

CORPORATION
VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
I, Bebot Mariano, of legal age, do hereby

state that:
1. I am the President of Bebot Bebot Be

Company and in such capacity, caused
this Complaint to be prepared;
2. I was authorized by the Board of
Directors of Bebot Bebot Be Corporation
to file this suit, as evidenced by the
attached board resolution;
3. I have read its contents and affirm that
they are true and correct to the best of
my own personal knowledge;
4. I hereby certify that there is no other
case commenced or pending before any
court involving the same parties and the
same issue and that, should I learn of
such a case, I shall notify the court
within 5 days from my notice.

instrument on 19 July 2017.
(Sgd.)
BEBOT MARIANO
[INSERT JURAT]
F. NOTICE OF HEARING (FOR ALL LEVELS)
1. DEFINITION AND GENERAL RULES
A request for hearing is a request for the Branch Clerk of Court to include the motion in the
calendar for hearing on a specific date, while a notice of hearing is a notice to opposing
counsel of the hearing date requested. (Te, Pleadings, Petitions, Motions and Other Judicial
and Legal Forms, 2007)
Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse
party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant. (Rules of Court, Rule 15,
Sec.5).
2. THE 3-DAY AND 10-DAY NOTICE RULE
The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and
date of the hearing which must not be later than 10 days after the filing of the motion. (Rules of
Court, Rule 15, Sec.5).
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served
in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least 3 days before the date of
hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. (Rules of Court,
Rule 15, Sec.4).
3. SPECIAL RULES GOVERNING NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE THE COURT OF

APPEALS AND SUPREME COURT
General Rule: Motions before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court are not set for
hearing; hence, a notice of hearing is generally not filed before these courts. (Rules of Court,
Rule 49, Sec. 3 & Rule 56, Sec. 2)
Exception: Before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, oral arguments on motions are
only set for hearing when the court so directs. (Rules of Court, Rule 49, Sec. 3 & Rule 56, Sec.
2)
4. FORM: NOTICE OF HEARING
REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Branch 1, Makati City
Please submit the foregoing Motion to the

Court for its consideration and approval
immediately upon receipt hereof and kindly
include the same in the court’s calendar
for hearing on Friday, 17 March 2017 at
8:30 in the morning.
(sgd.)
Atty. Harvey Specter
Counsel for Defendant
ATTY. MIKE ROSS

Counsel for the Plaintiff
1 Rockwell Drive
Makati City
Please take notice that counsel has

requested to be heard on Friday, 17 March
2017 at 8:30 in the morning.
(sgd.)
Atty. Harvey Specter
A&A Firm
Hidalgo Drive, Makati City
G. AFFIDAVITS AND EXPLANATION
1. DEFINITION
It is a sworn statement in writing sworn before a notary or other officers entitled to administer
oaths. (Suare, Legal Forms)
2. FORM: BASIC TEMPLATE FOR ALL AFFIDAVITS
[Note: This provided template is the standard for all forms of affidavits.]

AFFIDAVIT
I, [name], of legal age with address at

[address], after being sworn in accordance
with law, do hereby depose and state that:
1. [Insert recital of facts attested to or

affirmed in the affidavit. Note that these
“facts” should be based on the affiant’s
personal knowledge.]
2. [ x x x ]
3. [ x x x ]
I have nothing further to say at this time.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my

signature on this [date] in the [place].
[Name and Signature of Affiant]
[INSERT JURAT]
3. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
Contents (Sec. 3)
A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness and, if not in English
or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and shall contain the following:
1. The name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the witness;
2. The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the
witness and the place where the examination is being held;
3. A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that
he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
4. Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered,
that:
a. Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies;
b. Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and
c. Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their authenticity
in accordance with the Rules of Court.
5. The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
6. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath or an officer who is
authorized by law to administer the same.
Sworn attestation of the lawyer (Sec. 4)

The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer who
conducted or supervised the examination of the witness, to the effect that:
1. He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he asked and the
corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
2. Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness
regarding the latter's answers.
4. MODES OF SERVICE; GENERAL RULES
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned. (Rules of
Court, Rule 13, Sec. 2)
If any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one
of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. (Rules of Court, Rule 13,
Sec. 2)
General Rule: Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall
be done personally. (Rules of Court, Rule 13, Sec. 11)
Exception: Parties may resort to other modes of service (i.e., service by registered mail or
substituted service); however, this must be accompanied by a written explanation why the
service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the
paper as not filed. (Rules of Court, Rule 13, Sec. 11)
All modes of service require affidavits of the party serving. (Rules of Court, Rule 13, Sec. 13)
5. PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE
Proof of personal service requires either the:

 Written admission of the party served; or
 Official return of the server; or
 Affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of
service (Rules of Court, Rule 13, Sec. 13)
6. FORM: PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE WITH AFFIDAVIT

[INCLUDE BELOW PLEADING]
Copy furnished through personal service:
Atty. Juan Dela Cruz

Counsel for the Defendant
Dela Cruz & Associates
Quezon Ave., Quezon City

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, PEDRO TORRES, Filipino, of legal age, a

messenger of Atty. Mark Gutierrez, with
office address at 77 West Street, Makati
City, after being duly sworn, do hereby
depose and state:
That on the 26th of February, 2016, I served

a copy of the following pleadings/papers in
accordance with Section 10, Rule 13 of the
Rules of Court:
Motion to Dismiss
_________________
_________________
In Case No. 2435 entitled Go v. Go, upon

Atty. Juan Dela Cruz at 34 West Street,
Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, counsel for
the Defendant in the aforementioned case.
TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I

have signed this Affidavit on 27th of
February, 2016, in the City of Makati,
Philippines.
(Sgd.) PEDRO TORRES

Affiant
[INSERT JURAT]
7. SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL AND ACCOMPANYING EXPLANATION
If service is made by registered mail, there must be proof of service through an affidavit and the
registry receipt issued by the mailing office. (Rules of Court, Rule 13, Sec. 13)
8. FORM: PROOF OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL WITH ACCOMPANYING

EXPLANATION AND AFFIDAVIT
Copy furnished through registered mail:

Atty. Juan Dela Cruz
Counsel for the Defendant
Dela Cruz & Associates
Quezon Ave., Quezon City
Registry Receipt No.: 232

Post Office: Taguig City
Date: 26 February 2016
EXPLANATION
The Foregoing Motion to Dismiss and its

attachment was served on Atty. Juan Dela
Cruz by registered mail instead of personal
service as counsel for petitioner only one
messenger and personal service would
have resulted in the motion not being filed
on time to the detriment of petitioner.
(Sgd.)
MARK GUTIERREZ

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, PEDRO TORRES, Filipino, of legal age, a

messenger of Atty. Mark Gutierrez, with
office address at 77 West Street, Makati
City, after being duly sworn, do hereby
depose and state:
That on the 26th of February, 2016, I served

a copy of the following pleadings/papers by
registered mail in accordance with Section
10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court:
Motion to Dismiss
_________________
_________________
In Case No. 2435 entitled Go v. Go, by

depositing a copy in the post office in a
sealed envelope, plainly addressed to Atty.
Juan Dela Cruz at 34 West Street, Quezon
Avenue, Quezon City, with postage fully
paid, as evidenced by Registry Receipt No.
232 attached and with instructions to the
post master to return the mail to sender
after 10 days if undelivered.

Philippines.
(Sgd.) PEDRO TORRES

Affiant
[INSERT JURAT]
9. ORDERS OF ATTACHMENT
An order of attachment is granted only when an affidavit of the applicant or a person who
sufficiently knows the facts states that:
1. A sufficient cause of action exists;
2. That the case is one of those mentioned in Sec. 1 of Rule 57;
3. That there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action;
and
4. The amount due to the applicant is as much as the sum for which the order is granted above
all legal counterclaims. (Rules of Court, Rule 57, Sec. 3)
10. FORM: AFFIDAVIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
AFFIDAVIT

I, Harry Potter, Filipino, of legal age,

single/married, and residing at 234
Hogwarts Road, Makati City, after being
sworn in accordance with law, depose and
say:
1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-
entitled case;
2. That a sufficient cause of action exists

against the defendant named therein;
3. That this action is one of those
specifically mentioned in Sec. 1 of Rule
57 of the Rules of Court, whereby a writ
of preliminary attachment may lawfully
issue, namely: [state the nature of the
suit which should be one of the six
causes of action mentioned in Rule 57,
Sec. 1];
4. That there is no sufficient security for
the claim sought to be enforced by the
present action;
5. That the amount due to the plaintiff in
the above-entitled case is as much as
the sum for which an order of
attachment is herein sought to be
granted, above all legal counterclaims
on the part of the defendant.

Philippines.
(Sgd.)
Harry Potter
[INSERT JURAT]
7. SELF-ADJUDICATION BY A SOLE HEIR
If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit
filled in the office of the register of deeds. (Rules of Court, Rule 74, Sec. 1)
8. FORM: AFFIDAVIT OF ADJUDICATION BY SOLE HEIR OF ESTATE OF DECEASED

PERSON

AFFIDAVIT
I, Ginny Weasley, of legal age, single, and

now residing at Makati City, Philippines,
after having been sworn in accordance with
law, depose and say:
1. That I am the only surviving daughter of

Arthur Weasley who died intestate in the
city of Makati, Philippines on 27
February 2017, as evidenced by Death
Certificate issued by the Makati Medical
Center, hereto attached as Annex “A”
and made an integral part of this
Affidavit;
2. That said deceased left an estate
consisting of a parcel of land measuring
1,000 sqm. located in the City of Makati,
and evidenced by Transfer of Title No.
12422 of the Registry of Deeds of
Makati;
3. That the said parcel of land is more
particularly described as follows: Insert
technical description of the property]
4. That said deceased left no debts;
5. That pursuant Rule 74, Sec. 1 of the
Rules of Court, I hereby adjudicate unto
myself the above described real estate
by means of this affidavit and hereby file
the same with the Registry of Deeds of
Makati with the request that said
adjudication be made effective without
judicial proceedings as prescribed by
the aforementioned Rules of Court.

set my hand this 30th day of April, 2017, in
Makati, Philippines.
(Sgd.)
Ginny Weasley
[INSERT JURAT]
9. FORM: AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS

AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS
I, Neville Longbottom, of legal age, single

and residing at 235 Privet Drive, Makati
City, after having been duly sworn to
according to law hereby depose and state:
1. That I am the owner of a Nokia cellphone

model 6150 with unit number 0917-5555555
under account number 22222;
2. That on the 30th of October, 2017 with a
number of books and packages I was
carrying while getting out of my car, my
said cellphone must have slipped from
my pocket because after I reached my
office, I hurriedly tried to get my said
cellphone from my pocket but I was a
little bit shocked as it was not there
anymore;
3. That despite diligent seacrh inside my car
and the stairs and elevator used going up
my office, my said cellphone was nowhere
to be found;
4. That I am executing this affidavit in order to
attest to the truth of the foregoing
circumstances and for the purpose of
reporting the loss to the Globe business
center.

set my hand this 31st day of October, 2017
at the City of Manila.
(Sgd.)
Neville Longbottom
[INSERT JURAT]
9. COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
To initiate a preliminary investigation, the offended party must file a complaint with the proper
officers, such as the provincial or city prosecutor. The complaint must:
1. State the address of the respondent;
2. Be accompanied by the afidavits of the complainant and his witnesses;
3. Be accompanied other supporting documents showing probable cause. (Rules of Court,
Rule 112, Sec. 3 (a))
The affidavits must be:

1. Subscribed and sworn to before:
a. Any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath; or
b. In their absence or unavailability, a notary public;
2. The above officer or notary public must certify that he personally examined the affiants and
that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. (Rules of
Court, Rule 112, Sec. 3 (b))
10. FORM: COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT


COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, DAISY DUKE, of legal age, Filipino, with

assistance of counsel, and a resident of 5
Dusseldorf Street, Salcedo Village, Makati,
do hereby state under oath that:
1. I am a member of the Salcedo Village

Homeowner’s Association (“Association”)
and was formerly a Director and Corporate
Secretary of the Association.
2. I accuse and hereby charge MR. SUNGIT
BUNGI, residing at 7 Dusseldorf Street,
Salcedo Village, Makati, of violating Article
358 of the Revised Penal Code (Slander
and Oral Defamation), committed against
me when he publicly, maliciously and
deliberately uttered defamatory remarks
against me during the Board Meeting of the
Association on 1 January 2017. This is
attested to by the following exchange that
transpired between Mr. Bungi and the other
members of the Board in attendance:
(Quote Exchange)
Attached as “ANNEX A” is a copy of the

official transcript of the meeting.
3. Though prior resort to the barangay

conciliation system was taken, there was no
reconciliation that occurred, as Mr. Bungi
did not retract his remarks. Consequently, a
“Certification to File Action” was issued by
the Barangay Chairperson, a copy of which
is attached as “ANNEX B."
4. There is no other person named

“SUNGIT BUNGI” residing at Salcedo
Village nor is there any other person named
“DAISY DUKE” who has acted as Board
Member of the Association. Consequently,
Mr. Bungi’s public and defamatory utterance
was clearly a reference to me and to no
other.
5. Mr. Bungi’s remarks, calling me a
swindler and prostitute twice over, uttered in

a public meeting in front of the other
members and officers of the Association,
are clearly insulting and defamatory as they
malign me and attribute to me criminal acts.
Also, Mr. Bungi’s use of the words
“swindled” and “prostitute” was deliberate as
his explanation and clarification a few
utterances thereafter would show. Mr.
Bungi’s remarks are also very serious as
they cast aspersions on my reputation,
character and very person before my peers
and fellow homeowners.
6. Mr. Sungit Bungi’s remarks have injured
my name, reputation and character before
my neighbors and peers. While my name,
reputation and character are incapable of
pecuniary estimation as these are the result
of a lifetime’s effort to build a name,
reputation and character that my children
and their children can be proud to bear, Mr.
Bungi cannot be allowed to continue on in
life without bearing the consequences of his
acts. For this reason, I am also holding Mr.
Bungi liable civilly for defaming me in the
amount of P1,000,000.00 in nominal
damages, P500,000.00 in moral damages
and P500,000.00 in exemplary damages.

have signed this Complaint-Affidavit on 13
January 2017.
(Sgd.)
DAISY DUKE
Complainant-Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE

ME this 13th day of January 2017.
(Sgd.)
Investigating Prosecutor
H. ADDITIONAL FORMS (FOR REFERENCE)
[Note: The forms featured below are not part of the Bar Syllabus for 2017. However, they have
been included due to their relevance, the frequency by which they were asked in previous bar
exams with Legal Forms as part of coverage, and for ease of reference.]
1. NOTICE OF APPEAL
An appeal may be taken within 15 days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final
order appealed from. This is done by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the
judgment or final order appealed from. (Rules of Court, Rule 40, Secs. 2 & 3)
The notice of appeal shall indicate:

1. The parties to the appeal;
2. The judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from; and
3. The material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal. (Rules of Court, Rule 40, Sec. 3)
Copies of the notice of appeal, and the record on appeal where required, shall be served on the
adverse party. (Rules of Court, Rule 40, Sec. 3)
2. FORM: NOTICE OF APPEAL
Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region
LETS GO,
Plaintiff,
-versus- Civil Case No. 22
AYIE GO,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Defendant hereby gives notice that he is

appealing to the Court of Appeals the
default judgment of this court in the case of
Go v. Go, dated 21 January 2017, copy of
which was received on 28 January 2017, as
said default judgment is contrary to the
facts, the evidence and the law.
The appeal fee is paid per O.R. No. 2234

dated 31 January 2017, copy of which is
attached hereto as Annex “A.”
WHEREFORE, defendant prays that the

entire records be elevated to the Court of
Appeals, and for such other reliefs as may
be just and equitable in the premises.
Makati City; 31 January 2017.
(Sgd.)
ATTICUS FINCH
Counsel for Plaintiff
22 Willow St., Makati City
[INSERT SERVICE OF NOTICE AND

PROOF OF SERVICE]
2. INFORMATION; DEFINED
An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the

prosecutor and filed with the court. (Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 4)
3. CONTENTS OF AN INFORMATION
A complaint or information is sufficient in form if it states:

1. The name of the accused;
2. The designation of the offense given by the statute;
3. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense;
4. The name of the offended party;
5. The approximate date of the commission of the offense; and
6. The place where the offense was committed. (Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 6)
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the
complaint or information. (Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 6)
The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver
the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section
or subsection of the statute punishing it. (Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 8)
If one or more elements of the crime have not been alleged in the information, the accused
cannot be convicted even if the missing element has been proved during the trial, or even if the
accused has pleaded guilty to such defective information. The evidence adduced or the plea of
guilty cannot cure the fatal defects, as the information is null and void. (People v. Pangilinan Y
Crisostomo, G.R. No. 183090, 2011)
Where probable cause is found as a result of a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor will
prepare the resolution and information. He shall also certify under oath in the said information
that:
1. He, as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the
complainant and his witnesses;
2. That there is a reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and
that the accused is probably guilty thereof;
3. That the accused was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. (Rules
of Court, Rule 112, Sec. 4)
Where the accused is lawfully arrested without a warrant, however, for a crime which requires a
preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by the prosecutor without
need of the investigation, provided an inquest is conducted. In such a case, a certification as to
the conduct of inquest will replace the certificate as to the conduct of a preliminary investigation.
(Rules of Court, Rule 112, Sec. 7)
4. FORM: INFORMATION (BASIC TEMPLATE WITH CERTIFICATION AS TO CONDUCT OF

INQUEST)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- Criminal Case No. 22

For: [Crime]
A.B. BLACK,
Accused.
x-----------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned accuses A.B. BLACK

of the crime of [crime] committed as follows:
[Set out the time and place, when and

where the crime is committed, and the facts
constituting the offense, where all the
elements thereof and the facts showing
such elements be alleged in the
information; always consult the definition
and elements of the crime as shown by the
specific provision of the Revised Penal
Code or any other penal law involved.]
[The information must also allege the

qualifying and aggravating circumstances;
the damage caused the complainant or the
heirs of the victim. If they are not alleged,
even if they are proved during the trial, the
qualifying and aggravating circumstances
will not be taken into account in qualifying
or aggravating the offense, as the case may
be.]
Contrary to law.
WYNDHAM WHALE
Prosecutor
CERTIFICATION AS TO CONDUCT OF
INQUEST
I hereby certify that the accused was

lawfully arrested without a warrant and that,
upon being informed of his rights, refused to
waive the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code and, for this reason, an
Inquest was conducted; that based on the
complaint and the evidence presented
before me without any countervailing
evidence submitted by the accused, despite
opportunity to do so, there is reasonable
ground to believe that the accused has
committed the crime of theft and should,
thus, be held for said crime; that this
Information was with the prior authority of
the City Prosecutor.
WYNDHAM WHALE
Assistant City Prosecutor
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE

ME this 9th of August 2017 in Makati City.
FISHER LEE
City Prosecutor
5. FORM: INFORMATION FOR ATTEMPTED RAPE


Plaintiff,

For: Attempted Rape
DUNDUN DUN,
Accused.
x-----------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned accuses DUNDUN DUN of

attempted rape committed as follows:
That on or about 6 June 2016, in Quezon

City, the accused did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously enter the house
of GANDA KHO, a married woman, and
finding that her husband was away, with
lewd designs and by means of force and
intimidation, commenced directly by overt
acts to commit the crime of attempted rape
upon her person, to wit: while GANDA KHO
was sweeping the floor, the accused seized
her from behind, threw her to the floor,
raised her skirt, pulled down her underwear
and attempted to penetrate her with his
sexual organ and would have succeeded in
doing so had not her loud protests and
vigorous resistance brought her husband to
her assistance, causing the accused to flee
from the premises without completing all the
acts of execution.
CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating

circumstance of dwelling.
LANCELOT LEE
Assistant City Prosecutor
[INSERT CERTIFICATION AS TO
CONDUCT OF INQUEST OR
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION]
6. MOTION TO QUASH
At any time before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or
information. (Rules of Court, Rule 117, Sec. 1)
The motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by the accused or his counsel and shall distinctly
specify its factual and legal grounds. The court shall consider no ground other than those stated
in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. (Rules of Court, Rule 117,
Sec. 2)
The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds:
1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
2. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
3. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
4. That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
5. That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;

6. That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various
offenses is prescribed by law;
7. That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
8. That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
9. That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the
case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
7. FORM: MOTION TO QUASH


Plaintiff,

For: Theft
BAT MAN,
Accused.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH
THE ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully

moves to quash the Information for the
crime of theft on the following:
GROUNDS
1. IT CONTAINS AVERMENTS WHICH, IF

TRUE, WOULD CONSTITUTE A LEGAL
JUSTIFICATION;
2. THIS COURT IS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION.
In support, the accused respectfully states

that:
ARGUMENT
The Information alleges that the accused

BAT MAN is 11 years old and without any
known address. Under Article 12, paragraph
3 of the Revised Penal Code, a person over
nine years of age and under fifteen, unless

he acted with discernment, is exempt from
criminal liability.
There is no allegation that the accused

acted with discernment. Even granting said
discernment, the accused cannot be tried
but instead proceeded against under Article
80 of the Revised Penal Code, which
provides that a minor, unless sixteen years
of age at the time of the commission of a
grave or less grave felony, cannot be tried
but instead shall have the benefit of a
suspension of all proceedings against him.
The duty of the court would be to commit
the minor to the custody or care of a public
or private benevolent or charitable institution
for the care and education of homeless and
delinquent children or to the custody of the
Department of Social Work and
Development.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that

the Information against the accused be
QUASHED and that the accused be
released immediately from detention.
Makati City; 7 July 2017.
(Sgd.)
MITCH MCDEERE
Counsel for the Accused
33 Swallow Drive, Makati City
7. SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

Special powers of attorney are necessary in the following cases:
1. To make such payments as are not usually considered as acts of administration;
2. To effect novations which put an end to obligations already in existence at the time the
agency was constituted;
3. To compromise, to submit questions to arbitration, to renounce the right to appeal from a
judgment, to waive objections to the venue of an action or to abandon a prescription already
acquired;
4. To waive any obligation gratuitously;
5. To enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or
acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration;
6. To make gifts, except customary ones for charity or those made to employees in the
business managed by the agent;
7. To loan or borrow money, unless the latter act be urgent and indispensable for the
preservation of the things which are under administration;

8. To lease any real property to another person for more than one year;
9. To bind the principal to render some service without compensation;
10. To bind the principal in a contract of partnership;
11. To obligate the principal as a guarantor or surety;
12. To create or convey real rights over immovable property;
13. To accept or repudiate an inheritance;
14. To ratify or recognize obligations contracted before the agency;
15. Any other act of strict dominion. (Civil Code, Art. 1878)
8. FORM: SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
I, LEGOLAS LAWD, of legal age, and

resident of Makati City, do hereby name,
constitute and appoint GIMLI GIANT, of
legal age, and resident of Quezon City, to
be my true and lawful Attorney-in-Fact and
in my name, place and stead, do perform
the following specific act(s):
[Specify the particular act/s to be

performed]
Giving and granting unto said attorney-in-

fact power and authority to do every act
necessary and required in connection with
these presents, and hereby ratifying and
confirming all that she may do by virtue of
these presents.

Special Power of Attorney this 7 July 2017
at Makati City.
(Sgd.)
LEGOLAS LAWD
Principal
(Sgd.)
GIMLI GIANT
(Sgd.)
BILBO BAGGINS
9. COMPLAINT
The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action. The names and
residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint. (Rules of Court, Rule
6, Sec. 3)
10. FORM: COMPLAINT FOR SUM OF MONEY
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI
BRANCH __
Martin Luther,
Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL Case No. ___

For: Sum of Money
Stephen King,
Defendant
x--------------------------x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, through counsel, most

respectfully states:
1. That plaintiff is a Filipino, of legal age,
single and residing at 23 Swallow
Street, Makati City, whereas defendant
is likewise Filipino, of legal age, married
to Sarah King, and residing at 32
Garbler Street, Makati City, at which
address the parties herein may be
served with summons and other court
processes;
2. That on 30 May 2017, defendant
borrowed from plaintiff the amount of
P1,000,000.00. which indebtedness is
due and payable on or before 30
August, 2017, with an interest at the rate
of 12% per annum, in accordance with
the promissory note executed by the
defendant on the said date. Photocopy
of said note is herewith attached and
marked as Annex “A” and made integral
part hereof.
3. That defendant has failed and refused
and still fails and refuses to pay the said
indebtedness on due date, with the
corresponding interest thereon to the
herein plaintiff, despite repeated
requests and demands.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that after
due hearing, judgment be rendered in favor
of plaintiff and against defendant in this
manner:
1. Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff
the amount of P1,000,000.00. Plus
interest thereon at the rate of 12% per
annum; and
2. Ordering the defendant to pay the costs
of this suit.
(Date, Place, Signature)
[INSERT VERIFICATION WITH

CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING]
11. FORM: COMPLAINT FOR EJECTMENT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF
MAKATI
BRANCH __
Martin Luther Corporation,

Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL Case No. 222

For: Ejectment
Stephen King,
Defendant
x--------------------------x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully states

that:
1. Plaintiff is a foreign corporation

organized and existing under the laws of
France with business address at 111
Ocean Lane, Makati City; Defendant is a
Filipino, of legal age, single and
currently resident of 112 Ocean Lane,
Makati City, where he may be served
with summons and other pertinent
processes.
2. Plaintiff owns that property located at
112 Ocean Lane, Makati City which it
leased to defendant under the terms
and conditions stated in the Contract of
Lease dated 1 January 2005, which
contract expires on 31 December 2016.
A copy of the contract is attached as
ANNEX A.
3. Upon expiration of the contract, plaintiff
informed defendant of its intention not to
renew the lease as it would use the
property for its business expansion;
plaintiff then asked defendant to vacate
the premises. A copy of plaintiff’s letter
to defendant is attached as ANNEX B.
4. Despite demand duly made and
received, defendant has refused to
vacate the premises and continues to
occupy the property without plaintiff’s
consent. Resort to the Barangay
conciliation system proved useless as
defendant refused to appear before the
Lupong Tagapamayapa. A Certification
to File Action is attached as ANNEX C.
5. Defendant’s act of dispossession has
caused plaintiff to suffer material injury
because plaintiff’s business expansion
plans could not be implemented despite
the arrival of machineries specifically
leased for this purpose at the rental rate
of US$500 per month. Defendant’s
continued occupation of the premises
has also forced plaintiff to sue and to
incur legal expenses amounting to
P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays

for judgment in its favor by ordering
defendant to vacate the property and
peacefully turn over possession to plaintiff
and for defendant to pay plaintiff the amount
of US$3,500 representing rentals on the

machineries for 7 months and P50,000.00
for Attorney’s fees.
Other just and equitable reliefs are also

prayed for.
Makati City; 13 April 2017.
(Sgd.)
ATTICUS FINCH
Counsel for Plaintiff
22 Willow St., Makati City
[INSERT VERIFICATION AND

SHOPPING]
12. ANSWER; DEFINED
An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses. (Rules of Court,
Rule 6, Sec. 4)
13. SPECIFIC DENIALS IN ANSWERS
In an answer, the defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he
does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon
which he relies to support his denial. (Rules of Court, Rule 8, Sec. 10)
Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as
is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. (Rules of Court, Rule 8, Sec. 10)
Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of a material averment made to the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of
a denial. (Rules of Court, Rule 8, Sec. 10)
General Rule: Material averment in the complaint shall be deemed admitted when not
specifically denied.
Exception: Unliquidated damages need not be specifically denied.
14. SPECIFIC DENIALS OF ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS
General Rule: When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, the
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse
party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts. (Rules
of Court, Rule 8, Sec. 7)
Exception: The requirement of an oath does not apply –

1. When the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument; or
2. When compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.
15. FORM: ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

LETS GO,
Plaintiff,
-versus- Civil Case No. 22
AYIE GO,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM
DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully

states that:
Admissions/Denials
1. He admits the contents of paragraph 1

only insofar as his personal circumstances
but specifically denies the contents insofar
as plaintiff’s personal circumstances for the
reason stated in the Affirmative Defenses
below.
only where it states that a Contract of Lease
was entered into but specifically denies that
the Contract reflects the true intent of the
parties as explained in the Affirmative
Defenses below.
only as to the fact that demand to vacate
was made but specifically denies its
contents as to the truth of the reasons for
the letter for lack of knowledge sufficient to
form a reasonable belief as to its truth or
falseness..
4. He specifically denies the contents of
paragraphs 4 to 6 for the reasons stated in
the Affirmative Defenses below.
Affirmative Defenses
5. Defendant reiterates, repleads and

incorporates by reference all the foregoing
insofar as they are material and additionally
submit that the Complaint should be
dismissed because:
5.1. Plaintiff has no capacity to sue as it is a

foreign corporation doing business in the
Philippines without a license.
5.2. The Complaint fails to state a cause of
action as the Contract of Lease (ANNEX A)
was, before its expiration, superseded by a
Deed of Absolute Sale whereby plaintiff sold
to defendant the parcel of land in question,
a copy of which is attached as ANNEX 1.
Counterclaim
6. Defendant reiterates, repleads and

incorporates by reference all the foregoing
insofar as they are material and additionally
submit that he is entitled to relief arising
from the filing of this malicious and baseless
suit, as follows:
1. Moral damages amounting to
P1,000,000.00; and
2. Attorney’s Fees amounting to
P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully

prays that judgment be rendered in his favor
by
1. Dismissing the Complaint, and
2. Granting defendant’s counterclaim by
awarding defendant P1,000,000 as
Moral Damages, and P50,000) as
Attorney’s Fees.
Makati City; 29 October 2017
(Sgd.)
HARVEY SPECTER
23 Piper Lane, Makati City
[INSERT VERIFICATION AND

SHOPPING]
[Note: A Verification and Certification

Against Forum Shopping would not be
needed in an Answer without counterclaims
or those that do not seek to initiate a
complaint against the adverse party, as
they are needed only in initiatory pleadings.]
END OF TOPIC

Summer Reviewer - Edited 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Summer Reviewer - Edited 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGAL ETHICS AND LEGAL FORMS

I. THE PRACTICE OF LAW……………….1

NEGOTIATION WITH THE OPPOSITE PARTY 31

WHEN ASSIGNED; IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS 46

DUTY NOT TO CO-MINGLE FUNDS.......59

GENERAL RETAINER OR RETAINING FEE 72

I. THE PRACTICE OF LAW

TOPICS UNDER THE SYLLABUS

A. Practice of Law (Rule 138)

(a) Definition of the practice of law

Regulation of the Practice of Law in the Philippines

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

Who may practice law?

(c) Profession, not Business

It is a profession, not business; it is an essential part in the administration of justice, a

moneymaking venture (Jayme v. Bualan, G.R. No. 37386, 1933).

QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR (POSR-L):

1. Passed the Bar Examinations;

Admission to the Bar

He must also show that (MEBO):

1. No charges of Moral turpitude are filed or pending against him (Id.)

CONTINUING REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAR

(a) Good Moral Character

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8049 (The Anti-Hazing Law)

An initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity,

sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or

1. Petition for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship;

Good Moral Character

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8049 (The Anti-Hazing Law)

An initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity,

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

What constitutes unauthorized practice of law?

APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS IN COURTS

General Rule: Non-lawyers cannot practice law.

Exceptions: Non-lawyers may appear in certain cases:

(a) Law Student Practice (Rule 138-A)

The rule on privileged communications applies to communications made to or received by the

(b) Non-lawyers in Courts (MOC-LC)

Q: Does a person have the right to represent himself in civil cases?

Q: Can a person represent himself in criminal cases?

(c) Non-lawyers in Administrative Tribunals

(d) Proceedings Where Lawyers are Prohibited from Appearing

1. Lawyers who have conflicting interests

Unauthorized Practice of Law

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

What constitutes unauthorized practice of law?

4. SANCTIONS FOR PRACTICE OR APPEARANCE WITHOUT AUTHORITY

(a) Lawyers Without Authority

(b) Persons Not Lawyers

What are the remedies against unauthorized practice of law?

PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRACTICE OF LAW

(a) Prohibition or disqualification of former government attorneysProhibitions or

Lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as

(b) Public Officials Who Cannot Practice Law or With Restrictions

local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office;

LAWYERS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT

Discipline of Lawyers in Government Service

Disbarment cannot be used as a means of unseating or ousting a public official, especially

I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;

What are the main sources of legal ethics in the Philippines?

1. The Lawyer’s Oath

TOPICS UNDER THE SYLLABUS

B. Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer