SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN LEGAL ETHICS
The practice of
 Theoretical ethics – Canons and all cases
 Practical ethics – based on video lectures
Grading System:
 Recitation – 30%
o No attendance but when called and not around, but if
you have a valid excuse.
 Final Exam – 70%
o Not yet sure if there’s going to be an oral exam
Mode:
 Asynchronous – 30%
o Video lectures, The Good Lawyer
 Synchronous – 70%
Special Problems in Legal Ethics
What makes legal ethics special?
 Legal ethics is the only law subject which deals not so
much with the law but more with the lawyer. That’s why it
is special; the law is predictable but lawyers are not.
What is the primary purpose of being a lawyer? If you become a
lawyer, what would be your primary motivation?
Primary Purpose of the Legal Profession
In re Tagorda
Using card which has a note: NOTE. — As notary public, he can
execute for you a deed of sale for the purchase of land as required by
the cadastral office; can renew lost documents of your animals; can
make your application and final requisites for your homestead; and
can execute any kind of affidavit. As a lawyer, he can help you
collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint
for or against you. Come or write to him in his town, Echague,
Isabela. He offers free consultation, and is willing to help and serve
the poor.
RULING: The law is a profession and not a business. The lawyer
may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for
to do so would be unprofessional.
 QN: What is so wrong in treating lawyering as business?
Who has a better marketing gain more clients.
o Incompetent lawyer will hire a good marketer.
The public will suffer because they will be hiring
a lawyer who is incompetent but happened to
have a good marketing strategy.
Burbe v. Magulta
RULING: In this day and age, members of the bar often forget that
the practice of law is a profession and not a business. Lawyering is
not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining
of a livelihood is not a professional but a secondary consideration.
Duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be
the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their
personal interests or what they owe to themselves.
law is a noble calling in which emolument is a by-product, and the
highest eminence may be attained without making much money
 Is it wrong for Burbe for want to earn in this case? No.
What’s so wrong with what he did? He appropriated the
money given by his client for his own benefit.
 Assuming that he did as he can as a lawyer, he deserves to
get paid. It’s not wrong to not want to get paid. It’s not
wrong to say that lawyering is a money-making thing.
!!! The gaining of a livelihood is not a professional but a secondary
consideration.
 It’s not wrong to earn, to want to get paid. What is wrong is
when it becomes your PRIMARY MOTIVATION for
handling the case.
QN: What makes a business a profession?
 When the primary motivation is to serve the public, it can
be a profession more than a business.
 Wrong: When you start treating your profession as
business; primary consideration is profit and not service to
the public
o When lawyers start looking at their job as a
business, that’s when lawyers are willing to
compromise their views, values, do underhanded
tactics.
o When money becomes the main motivation,
lawyers become corrupt!
!!! The primary purpose of lawyering really is SERVICE but it
doesn’t mean that you should not earn. You should earn and earn a
lot but not as your primary and only consideration.
THE PRACTICE OF LAW
Definition
Cayetano v. Monsod
Practice of law – any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts
which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law
is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or
service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill."
Why is this issue central in this case? Monsod was appointed as
Chairman of the COMELEC and the Constitution requires that
Chairman must be engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.
Note: There are different fields in law.
!!! Lawyering means anything a lawyer does.
QN: Lawyer – photographer. When people discovered that he is a
lawyer, every now and then, he is being asked legal question? Is he
engaged in the practice of law? Yes
 Lawyer – AM Radio anchor (public service radio program;
like Tulfo). Engaged in the practice of law? Yes
SpEthics (JGH) | 1
  Lawyer – Newscaster. Practice of law? No; only deliver
news.
Dissenting opinion, Gutierrez
 “INCIDENTAL” – why is this word important in this case?
o ATTY: Agree with incidental. If merely
incidental to what you’re doing, no practice of
law.
QN: Is this definition absurd? Yes, it can lead to a lot of ridiculous
situation. A movie director may say that hey, I made a movie about
murder mystery movie and it required my legal knowledge in making
the movie—it can be stretched that far.
Ciocon-Reer vs. Judge Lubao
This is a case where somebody who’s not a lawyer pretends to be a
lawyer.
 Punished for indirect contempt. Not a violation of
Professional Responsibility but unauthorized practice of
law.
Isn’t that a violation of the ethics of a lawyer? He is not a lawyer
that’s why he cannot be made liable under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 What can you conclude from this case? Those who are
made liable under the CPR are only lawyers. A non-lawyer,
on the other hand, who pretends to be one will be held
liable under Rule 71, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court.
Non-lawyers: Rule 71, Rules of Civil Procedure
Is he engaged in the practice of law? Yes. He requires the parties to
execute a special power of attorney in his favor to allow him to join
them as one of the plaintiffs as their attorney-in-fact. Then, he would
file the necessary complaint and other pleadings "acting for and in his
own behalf and as attorney-in-fact, agent or representative" of the
parties
QN: Another lawyer employs Karaan to write the pleadings for him,
is Mr. Karaan already engaged in the practice of law which will make
him liable for doing so? He only aids the lawyer-employer.
What is the operational act that would constitute practice of law?
Signing of the pleading + filing in court
 Until the pleading is signed by somebody, that pleading is a
mere scrap of paper.
o Operational act is what matters—the fact that you
signed
 Practice of law requires something that is official in that
sense because until then, that pleading that he signed when
not filed in court is a mere scrap of paper.
03/02/2021
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 laws as
well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit or give aid nor
consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice and will conduct
myself as a lawyer to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients, and I impose upon myself these
voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
So help me God.
Supervision and control of the SC
In the Matter of the integration of the IBP
 Affirming the power of SC to integrate the IBP
 Purpose: Regulate the practice of law
o How is it easier to regulate the bar if it is
integrated?
 Can the IBP discipline an erring lawyer? No, the power to
discipline is with the SC
o Can IBP impose penalty? No, it cannot because
the power to discipline is only with the SC
Dagohoy vs San Juan
Self-imposed compliance with the IBP’s recommended penalty.
 Was there a penalty and final decision in this case? No.
He’s talking of compliance with the findings of IBP
o The decision of IBP is merely recommendatory
as only the SC has the power to discipline
 IBP – fact-findiing body to determine
WON a lawyer committed violation
Laurel vs Delute
There is a long-standing case of Medina which the court cited and
which the court set aside.
The case of Medina echoes a line of case law stating that when a
resolution of an administrative disciplinary case against a lawyer
would necessarily delve into issues which are proper subjects of
judicial action, it is prudent for the court to dismiss the administrative
case. However, the application of this doctrine of restraint unduly
fetters and diminishes the Court’s exclusive and plenary power to
discipline members of the Bar. Further, it run countenance to the
principle that administrative cases for the discipline of lawyers may
proceed independently from civil and/or criminal cases despite
involving the same set of facts and circumstances. Further,
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are SUI GENERIS in that
they are neither civil nor purely criminal; they involve investigations
by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers, not the trial of an
action of a suit.
The SC flexing its muscles as the disciplining body tasked to oversee
the conducts of lawyers. And they said that a lawyer is not only a
professional but also considered officers of the court
SpEthics (JGH) | 2
  Our duty is not only as to our clients but first and foremost,
to the court. That’s why the Court has the power to
discipline us.
What are the requirements for those applying for admissions in the
bar?
1. Citizen of the Philippines
2. At least twenty-one years of age
3. Of good moral character
o How do you understand good moral character?
When no one is watching you. What’s important
is what you are when no one is watching you. In
fact, the term good moral character is
grammatically incorrect because if you have a
moral character, you are good. There’s no such
thing as good immoral character. You have to be
a moral person.
 Reputation – what the public knows
about you
 Integrity – who you are when no one is
watching
o Does it end after you get admitted to the Bar? It is
a continuing requirement. You must possess that
character until the day you die. There are many
lawyers who are disbarred, suspended,
disciplined because at a certain point, they lost
what they once have—good moral character.
De Zuzuarregui vs De Zuzuarregui
Other than good moral character there is another requirement: no
charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are
pending in any court in the Philippines
 Why this is a requirement? What is the significance of this?
No good moral character. Such that if the filing of the case
is to a certain extent is somehow already no longer affects
the moral character of the person—in this case the moral
character has been established and the filing of the case is
only to prevent him to be admitted to the bar—the filing of
the cases is no longer done in good faith but rather a way to
harass the person who wanted to be part of the Ph bar.
 The SC, while it is very strict with the admission
requirement, goes into the very spirit of the requirement
such that if the SC is able to detect that the complainant is
simply filing to harass the person to be admitted to the Ph
bar, the SC will not hesitate to take its foot down and allow
this person to be admitted in the Ph.
!!! Requirements are strict but the SC is reasonable.
4. A resident of the Philippines
5. No charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have
been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines
Re: Application of Adriano M. Hernandez
AM-19-03-24
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 the fourth-year subjects in
the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school duly
recognized by the Philippine Government.
The amendment shall apply to the bar examination applications
commencing the 2023 bar examinations (? Or 2010?)
 The SC is trying to accommodate graduate of foreign law
schools as much as they can
o REASON: Because of the GATT, ud be surprised
that in that particular lwa that lawyers from other
country, it is possible for them to practice Iin our
country. Because that is the very spirit of GATT,
internationalization. But again, let’s not cast a
stone because no pronouncement yet by SC for
foreign lawyers to practice in the Ph
LEGAL ETHICS
!!! Memorize the lawyer’s oath
Aranda vs Elayda
Lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency and of morality—which includes honesty, integrity, and
fair dealing. They must PERFORM THEIR FOURL-FOLD DUTY
TO SOCIETY, THE LEGAL PROFESSION, THE COURTS AND
THEIR CLIENTS in accordance with the values and norms of the
legal profession, as embodied in the CPR. Any conduct found
wanting in these considerations, whether professional or private
capacity, shall subject them to disciplinary action. In this case, the
failure of Atty Elayda to file the appellant’s brief was a clear
violation of his professional duty to his client.
Atty Elayda is duty bound to uphold and safeguard the and safeguard
the interest of his clients. He should be conscientious, competent and
diligent in handling his clients’ cases. Atty. Elayda should give
adequate attention, care, and time to all the cases he is handling. As
the spouses Aranda’s counsel, Atty. Elayda is expected to monitor the
progress of said spouses’ case and is obligated to exert all efforts to
present every remedy or defense authorized by law to protect the
cause espoused by the spouses Aranda.
As lawyers, are we bound to accept a client who wants to accept our
services?
No lawyer is obligated to advocate for every person who may wish to
become his client BUT once he agrees, the lawyer owes fidelity to
such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in him. An attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to
carry it to its termination until the case becomes final and executory.
(Mitchell vs Amistoso)
 The legal profession is a gift to us as a matter of trust. If sth
is entrusted to u, u take good care of it. And that’s why, the
SC did not only suspend the lawyers in this case, but also
warned
SpEthics (JGH) | 3
 February 10, 2021
Practical Ethics
THE GOOD LAWYER – VIDEO 1
5 keys to lawyering with integrity:
1. Purpose
“The greatest tragedy in life is not death, but life lived without a purpose.” –
Rick Warren from Purpose Driven Life
What is the difference between somebody who dies joyful and somebody who
dies miserable? More often than not, the answer is PURPOSE.
The person who dies miserable looks back at his life with regret while the
person who dies joyful looks back at his life with great gratitude knowing that
he lived out his purpose and that he lived it out well.
Let me paraphrase it a bit to apply it to our profession. We said that the
greatest tragedy of becoming a lawyer is not getting disbarred, but practicing
your profession day in and day out not knowing why.
Purpose is key, such that many people they lose their zeal for the profession
not because they overworked but because they don’t find meaning in what
they do. Rick Warren goes on to say this, “Its usually meaningless work, not
overwork, that wears us down, saps our strength, and robs our joy.” And that’s
why as lawyers, it is important for us to know the reason why we do what we
do.
But unfortunately, in law school, these are questions that we ask only when
we are in first year. But once we reached 2nd year, 3rd year, 4th year, you stop
asking those questions. You just finish the course so you just graduate and
take the bar exams. So, many become lawyers without asking the question
“Why did I become lawyer in the first place?” and that’s where the crisis
happens to people.
When you don’t settle this question early on, sooner or later as you practice
your profession, you would have to confront this nagging question: “Why do
I do what I do?”
Scotting theologian William Barclay said, “There are two great days in a
person's life—the day we are born and the day we discover why.” And to
paraphrase that, there are 2 great days in our lawyer’s life, the day we passed
the bar and the day we discover why we choose to become lawyers in the first
place. It is called PURPOSE, why do you do what you do.
So, the question is, what is purpose?
Purpose is the reason for our existence. It is the reason why you exist and is
the foundation of the choices that we make in life.
Take notice of that 2nd phrase in that particular definition—is the foundation of
your choices. When you do become a lawyer or if you are a lawyer, you’ll
notice, you make a lot of choices along the way—some good choices, some
bad choices. But the question is, what’s the basis for your choices. When you
make choices, what is that foundation? What is that basis that you use to say
that you’ll take this case, no to this case; that you go into this field of
lawyering and say no to this field of lawyering; apply this particular remedy or
not apply this particular remedy. All these decisions or choices that we make
as lawyers, they need to have a foundation; they need to have a basis. And that
basis, that foundation, is called PURPOSE.
It makes a big difference when you know now how to make decisions as a
lawyer because you have a good foundation, you have a good basis.
QN: What is the question that purpose seeks to answer? Basis for the
foundation of our decision or the basis of choices of our answer
 Right purpose because purpose is the foundation of the
decisions you make
CANON OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,
OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage
any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
Importance as a lawyer to obey the laws of the land and legal
processes
Fermin vs Bedol
FACTS: Fermin averred that one of this opponents and defeated
candidate filed with the COMELEC en banc a petition to declare a
failure of election and subsequent holding of a special election.
However, before the COMELEC issued a Resolution for such, Atty
Bedol had already issued a Notice informing them of a scheduled
special election. This act according to the complainant, renders him
totally unfit to remain as an honorable member of the bar. Thus, he
prays for the disbarment of Atty Bedol.
ISSUE: WON Atty Bedol should be administratively held liable?
RULING: Yes. The declaration of failure of election and the calling
of special elections shall be decided by the majority vote of the
members of the COMELEC En Banc. In this case however, no
Resolution was passed yet before the issuance of the Notice by Atty
Bedol.
Such act of issuing notices ahead of the Resolution was not in
compliance with the procedures under the law and the COMELEC
rules. In so doing, he breached his duty to obey the laws and the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein, thus violating
Canon 1 of the CPR.
Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and
legal processes. To the best of his ability, a lawyer is expected to
respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any act or omission that
is contrary thereto. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only
speaks of his character but it also inspires respect and obedience to
the law, on the part of the public. As servants of the law and officers
of the court, lawyers are required to be at the forefront of observing
and maintaining the rule of law. They are expected to make
themselves exemplars worthy of emulation. This, in fact, is what a
lawyer's obligation to promote respect for law and legal processes
entails. More so, a lawyer who is occupying a public office.
Lawyers in public office, are expected not only to refrain from any
act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the
citizenry in government but also uphold the dignity of the legal
profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing. 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.
The claim that he issued notices as there was no more time to prepare
for the special elections has no basis in law. The notices were issued
even prior to the COMELEC Resolution for the holding of a special
election. Members of the Bar are reminded that their first duty is to
SpEthics (JGH) | 4
comply with the rules of procedure, rather than seek exceptions as
loopholes. Respondent is expected to promote respect for the law and
legal processes.
Penalty: Suspension of 1 year with a stern warning that repetition of
the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more
severe penalty.
 Even the most trivial of laws should be followed by a
lawyer; even if you say na pareho lang ang result, ganun
din.
 As lawyers, there will be much power placed in your hands
but just because you have that power in your hands doesn’t
mean you could do anything that you want to do. We are
still bound by laws and rules of the country.
QN: Rule 1.01 – the words unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful,
what’s the problem with these words?
 These words are subjective depending on the person trying
to interpret the law. So, depending on the liberality, or lack
of it, of the Supreme Court, will depend your dismissal or
acquittal on whatever charges filed against you
 Immoral – how do you understand the word immoral?
Right or wrong depending on the standard of the society—
what is acceptable or what is not acceptable. It is the
society that determines what is immoral and not
o What is the problem with that? This definition is
dangerous.
o Today, killing is wrong. But 60 years beyond,
people say that killing is not wrong for no reason
at all. Is that possible?
In re CARLOS S. BASA
FACTS: Carlos Basa was admitted to the bars of California and the
Philippine Islands. Recently, he was found guilty in the CFI with the
crime of abduction with consent.
Thus, Atty-General asks that an order issue for the disbarment of Atty
Basa.
ISUE: WON the crime of abduction with consent involves moral
turpitude?
RULING: Moral turpitude – includes everything which is done
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Although no
decision can be found which decided what moral turpitude is, the
crimes of this character involve moral turpitude. The inherent nature
of the act is such that it is against good morals and the accepted rule
of right of conduct.
Penalty: When Basa shall be discharged from prison, he be
suspended from his office of lawyer for 1 year
Quingwa vs.Puno
FACTS: Flora Quingwa filed a verified complaint charging Armando
Puno, member of the Bar, with gross immorality and misconduct.
Respondent denied all the material allegations of the complaint, and
averred that the allegations do no constitute grounds for disbarment
or suspension.
Flora Quingwa, complainant, is an educated woman having been a
public school teacher for a number of years. She testified that
Armando Puno took her to the Silver Moon Hotel signing the
register as Mr and Mrs Puno and succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her on the promise of marriage.
Puno went to Zamboanga City. When she learned of it, he sent
telegram telling him that she was pregnant. Receiving no replies,
she went to Zamboanga where she met respondent and asked him
to comply with his promise to marry her. However, such was not
complied with.
RULING: The statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment
or suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the general power
of courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent powers of the
court over its officers CANNOT BE RESTRICTED. The Court held
that an atty will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty
in his profession, but also for gross misconduct, which shows him to
be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his
license and the law confer upon him.
Grossly immoral conduct is now one of the grounds for suspension or
disbarment.
Respondent has committed a grossly immoral act and has disregarded
and violated the fundamental ethics of his profession.
Penalty: Disbarred and name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of
Attorneys.
 Breach of promise to marry + using promise to marry to
have sexual intercourse
Arciga v. Maniwang
FACTS: Maniwang refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to
Arciga. After repeated acts of cohabitation between complainant and
respondent, then a medical technology student and a law student
respectively, who were sweethearts, their illicit relationship resulted
in the birth of their child, Michael Dino Maniwang.
Despite Segundino’s repeated assurance to Magdalena that he would
marry her once he passed the bar examinations and even made
Magdalena’s father believe that they were already married but that
the church wedding was being deferred until after he has passed said
examinations, he married another woman after his oath taking.
Maniwang admitted the allegations of the complaint against him but
claimed that he breached his promise because of Magdalena’s shady
past.
RULING: Immoral conduct – 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
Note that there is an area where a lawyer’s conduct may not be in
consonance with the canons of the moral code but he is not subject to
disciplinary action because his misbehavior or deviation from the
path or rectitude is not glaringly scandalous and that it is in
connection with his behavior towards opposite sex. Whether a
lawyer’s sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the
benefit of marriage should be characterized as grossly immoral
conduct will depend on the surrounding circumstances.
Respondent’s refusal to marry the complainant was not so corrupt nor
unprincipled as to warrant disbarment.
Penalty: Complaint dismissed.
Difference between Quingwa and Maniwang case: In Maniwang
case, there was repeated cohabitation. In Quingwa, sexual act was
done through forced [promise to marry]
SpEthics (JGH) | 5
  Breach of promise to marry – saying something and doing
another
Tumbokon vs Pefianco
FACTS: Engr Tumbokon filed an admin complaint against Atty
Pefianco for grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit
and grossly immoral conduct. Engr Tumbokon alleged that Atty
Pefianco abandoned his legal wife and cohabited with Galido, with
whom he has 4 children.
IBP Commissioner: recommended suspension for 1 year
RULING: RESPONDENT DID NOT DENY THE ACCUSATION
THAT HE ABANDONED HIS LEGAL FAMILY TO COHABIT
WITH HIS MISTRESS
Betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside
marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests
deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
Penalty: Suspended for 1 year
 The SC is trying to protect the sanctity of marriage and it
reminded lawyers that we ought to protect the marriage
 QN: After the suspension for 1 year, SC told him to leave
the mistress? No. Why not, is it that moral character a
continuing requirement? If he is allowed to live with his
mistress after suspension of 1 year, isn’t that tolerance?
o If the SC does not indicate as part of his penalty
to rectify the error that he did, it appears that it is
okay for him to continue with immoral acts as
long as he continuously serve the penalty if
another case is filed.
o Decision seems to be incomplete as there is no
warning re repeating the act
Effect of Reconciliation of Parties to Disbarment
Cordova v. Cordova
FACTS: Salvacion and Atty Laurence Cordova were married and 2
children were born. In that year, Atty Cordova left his family as well
as his job and went to live with one Fely Holgado. Fely Holgado was
herself married and left her own husband and children to stay with
respondent.
Atty Cordova and Fely lived together as husband and wife, Fely
using the surname Cordova. Cordova gave Fely funds with which to
establish a sari-sari store in the public market while failing to support
his legitimate family.
Cordova and his complainant wife had an apparent reconciliation and
Atty Cordova promised that he would separate from Fely. However,
he frequently come home from beerhouses or cabarets, drunk and
continued to neglect the support of his legitimate family.
Cordova was no longer living with her children in their conjugal
home; and that Cordova was living with another mistress, Luisita
Magallanes, and had taken his younger daughter Melanie along with
him.
Notwithstanding respondent’s promises to reform, he continued to
live with Luisita as her husband and continued to fail to five support
to his legitimate family.
The Commission received a telegram message from complainant
stating that complainant and respondent had been reconciled with
each other.
RULING: The most recent reconciliation between complainant and
respondent DOES NOT EXCUSE AND WIPE AWAY THE
MISCONDUCT AND IMMORAL BEHAVIOR of the respondent
carried out in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as
a member of the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself. An applicant
is required to show that he is possessed of good moral character. That
requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to
membership of the bar. That requirement persists as a continuing
condition for membership in the Bar in good standing.
The lack of moral character that we here refer to as essential is not
limited to good moral character relating to discharge of the duties and
responsibilities of an attorney at law. The moral delinquency continue
as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral
standards of the community, conduct for instance, which makes a
mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage.
Cordova maintained for about 2 years an adulterous relationship with
a married woman not his wife, in full view of general public, to the
humiliation and detriment of his legitimate family which he failed or
refused to support. After a brief period of reform respondent took up
again with another woman not his wife, cohabiting with her and
bringing along his young daughter to live with them
Penalty: Suspended indefinitely. [Lift suspension if he has proven
that he provides support for his legitimate family and that he has
given up his immoral acts]
 The immoral act of a lawyer is really an affront against the
court, in case of disbarment proceedings.
o Who is the real party in interest? The Republic,
the Court
Effect of Acquittal
Calub vs Suller
FACTS: Calub filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty Suller
for having raped his wife.
Complainant also filed a criminal complaint for rape against Atty
Suller. Atty Suller denied the accusation. The CFI then acquitted
respondent for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
RULING: The acquittal is not determinative of this administrative
case.
The testimonies of witnesses in the criminal complaint suffice to
show that respondent acted in a grossly reprehensible manner in
raping his neighbor’s wife.
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct whether in
the professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting
in moral character, in honesty, probity, and good demeanor or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. It must be noted that
good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the legal profession but it must also be possessed at all times in
order to maintain one’s good standing in that exclusive and honored
fraternity.
Penalty: Disbarred
 In terms of quantum of evidence
o Criminal case: proof beyond reasonable doubt
o Administrative/disbarment: Substantial evidence
SpEthics (JGH) | 6
  Case was already dismissed, e di di sya guilty of the crime,
why disbar if not guilty of the crime? Just because he was
acquitted in the criminal case does not mean that he did not
do the act. It is possible that you committed the act but the
evidence is not enough to convict you in a criminal case. If
you did do the act, it could reflect on your character as a
lawyer.
 Acquittal in criminal case doesn’t mean that he did not do
the act. And that he is not liable administratively.
Effect of Pardon to Disbarment
In re Lontok
FACTS: The Atty-General asks that an order issue for the removal of
Lontok from his office because of having been convicted of the crime
of bigamy. A pardon was then issued by the Governor-General.
The particular provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon which
the Atty-General relies in asking for the disbarment of Atty Lontok,
provides that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended
from his office by reason of conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude.
RULING: Where proceedings to strike an attorney's name from the
rolls are founded on, and depend alone, on a statute making the fact
of a conviction for a felony ground for disbarment, it has been held
that a pardon operates to wipe out the conviction and is a bar to any
proceeding for the disbarment of the attorney after the pardon has
been granted.
But where proceedings to disbar an attorney are founded on the
professional misconduct involved in a transaction which has
culminated in a conviction of felony, it has been held that while the
effect of the pardon is to relieve him of the penal consequences of his
act, it does not operate as a bar to the disbarment proceedings,
inasmuch as the criminal acts may nevertheless constitute proof that
the attorney does not possess a good moral character and is not a fit
or proper person to retain his license to practice law.
A pardon 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 an
innocent as if he had never committed the offense. If
granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties
and disabilities, consequent upon conviction, from
attaching; 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.
There is only this limitation to its operation; it does not
restore offices forfeited, or property or interest vested in
others in consequence of the conviction and judgement
The motion for disbarment is based solely on the judgement of
conviction for a crime of which the respondent has been pardoned,
We must also remember that the motion for disbarment is based
solely on the judgment of conviction for crime of which the
respondent has been pardoned, and that the language of the pardon is
not such as to amount to a conditional pardon similar in nature to a
parole
Penalty: Complaint dismissed.
 If a person is pardoned in the criminal case, what happens
to the disbarment case?
1. When proceedings in disbarment case is founded
on a statute making the fact of a conviction for a
felony  pardon = no disbarment case
2. When proceedings are founded on the
professional misconduct involved in a transaction
which culminated in a conviction of felony 
pardon relieves him of penal consequences BUT
it does not bar disbarment proceedings
 In the case of Calub, it is acquittal and yet SC proceeded
with the disbarment proceedings. In In re Lontok, it was a
conviction that was pardoned and SC did not continue with
the disbarment proceedings, is this inconsistent? Can we
say that when a person is pardoned, he did not commit the
act?
o In In re Lontok, the charge against him for
disbarment was based on his conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude under Section 27,
RoC. Because he was pardoned, there is no longer
conviction. But that does mean that he is not
grossly immoral? No.
o Could it be possible if the charge is based on
immorality instead of conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude like in the case of
Calub, the disbarment case will proceed? YES.
 So, in filing administrative case, use the proper ground. If
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, be ready
that the disbarment will not proceed if there’s pardon.
Effect of Conditional Pardon to Disbarment
In re Gutierrez
FACTS: Diosdado Gutierrez was convicted of the murder of
Samaco, former municipal mayor of Calapan and was sentenced to
RP. After serving portion of the respondent, he was granted a
conditional pardon by the President. The unexecuted portion of the
prison term was remitted on the condition that he shall not again
violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.
Widow of the deceased Samaco filed a complaint for disbarment.
ISSUE: WON the conditional pardon extended to respondent places
him beyond the scope of the rule on disbarment?
RULING: The ruling in the case of Lontok is not applicable in this
case. The pardon granted in the aforecited case was absolute. The
pardon granted here is not absolute but conditional, and merely
remitted the unexecuted portion of his term. It does not reach the
offense itself.
Penalty: Disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of lawyers.
 There is also a pardon but ruling is different. Why?
Conditional pardon
Effect of a dismissal of a pending administrative case
Hipolito vs Alejandro
FACTS: Hipolito, complainant, and his family were in actual and
physical possession of the disputed property which was planted with
mango and other fruit-bearing trees. Complainant also constructed his
family home on the property.
Respondents, together with some 30-40 unidentified men, entered
complainant’s property and began demolishing his house.
Respondents uttered words, cursing and shaming the complainant.
SpEthics (JGH) | 7
They were also threatened that a case will be filed against them if
they refused.
Contention: They should await the DARAB’s resolution of a
complaint filed by them
RULING: Complaints for disbarment or suspension are intended to
cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members
for the protection of the public and the courts. It is not meant to grant
relief to a complainant as in a civil case. Proceedings to discipline
erring members of the bar are instituted not only for the protection
and promotion of the public good, but also to maintain the dignity of
the profession by weeding out those who have proven themselves
unworthy. The Court, therefore, has full authority to discipline
respondents, when circumstances and evidence warrant, despite the
alleged dismissal of the DARAB complaint.
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed by the State only on those
who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications of the
profession. Thus, lawyers are expected to maintain, at all times, a
high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and
fair dealing, and must perform their four -fold duty to society, the
legal profession, the courts and their clients.
These standards hold true whether a lawyer acts in his or her
professional or private capacity. As such, a lawyer is required to
observe the law and be mindful of his or her actions whether acting in
a public or private capacity. Consequently, a lawyer may be
disciplined not only for malpractice in connection with his or her
profession, but also for gross misconduct outside of his professional
capacity
Penalty: Suspension for 6 months
Based on these cases, the issue of gross immoral conduct, deceitful
conduct, unlawful, dishonest has more to do with the character of a
lawyer rather than any technical issue. The SC is willing to go
beyond any technical issue to go into the very heart of the matter
which is the character of the lawyer.
R1.01 refers to the character of the lawyer. So, regardless of any
technical issue, reconciled, pardoned, case is dismissed, the SC will
go into the very issue which is the character of the lawyer.
Reconciliation, pardon and dismissal doesn’t change the fact that a
lawyer is immoral.
Sitaca vs Palomares , Jr.
FACTS: A criminal case for murder was raffled to RTC Branch 35
of which Judge Sitaca was the Presiding Judge. The case was against
Palomares and he was represented by his father, herein Atty Diego
Palomares.
Thereafter, the clerk of court reported to her that respondent was
present in the court for the purpose of securing approval of the bail
bond for his son’s temporary release. The bail bond was accompanied
by the order of release signed by Atty Baldado, clerk of court of
Branch 18.
Thus, Judge Sitaca approved the order of release and the bail bond
itself after she saw the signature of Judge Chavez thereon. Not long
after however, Judge Sitaca was informed that the supposed bail bond
was inexistent. Thus, he filed a disbarment case against Atty
Palomares.
Atty Palomares contention: He secured the bail bond through one
Guialani which was introduced to him by his client BHIC.
ISSUE: WON Atty Palomares is liable?
RULING: Yes. Despite his denial on the participation in the
procurement of the falsified bail bond and release order, the
combination of all the circumstances on record is such as to produce
the indubitable conclusion that it was him who conceptualized,
planned, and implemented the falsified bail bond and release order
for his son’s temporary release
1. He was the counsel of record for his son who was charged
with murder, a non-bailable offense
2. He knew there was no petition for bail at all, much less any
hearing thereon, nor an order granting or fixing the amount
thereof
 Being the counsel, he should be familiar with the
proceedings that actually took place therein
including those which did not take place at all.
 No proof that Guialani exists. BHIC only stated
that they introduced Atty Palomares to one
Guialani
3. He turned the table on the persons accusing him of
falsifying the bail bond and release order. He conveniently
pointed fingers at Judge Sitaca and her clerk of court when
HE HIMSELF CLEARLY APPEARS TO BE THE
MASTERMIND
4. Ozamis City, Brach 35 had already acquired jurisdiction
over the case. Thus, bail should have been processed and
applied for with the court
5. Under the principle of presumption of authorship, the
possessor and user of a falsified document is the author of
the falsification and whoever stands to benefit from the
falsification is the author thereof.
 It was respondent who held the falsified court
documents. He, too, utilized the same to secure
his son’s temporary liberty. Thus, he is presumed
to be the author of the falsified court documents
No one ordinary mortal, nay, a member of the bar could ignore the
glaring irregularity of the circumstances under which the falsified bail
bond and the release order were obtained. From beginning to end,
everything on its face looked wrong, smelled fishy, and revealed a
despicable design to tamper with court processes and records, with
impunity.
Respondent committed a serious breach of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1.
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR instructs that "as officers of the court,
lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal
proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing."
Indubitably, respondent fell short of such standard when he
committed the afore-described acts of misrepresentation and
deception against complainant. Such acts are not only unacceptable,
disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession; they further
reveal basic moral flaws that make respondent unfit to practice law.
Respondent indulged in deliberate falsehood when he caused the
falsification of the bail bond and release order. Not only that. He even
presented these court documents in court all for the purpose of
securing his son's temporary release from detention.
In his dealings with his client and with the courts, every lawyer is
expected to be honest, imbued with integrity, and trustworthy. These
expectations, though high and demanding, are the professional and
ethical burdens of every member of the Philippine Bar
The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of
the land but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of
court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct
himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity to the courts as well as to his clients. Every lawyer is a
servant of the law, and has to observe and maintain the rule of law as
well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by others.
SpEthics (JGH) | 8
Penalty: Disbarred and name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of
Attorney
 When you commit any deceitful conduct to the court such
as falsifying the bail bond, it goes to your very character as
a lawyer.
Assisting in the Defiance of the Law
 It is not enough that you don’t commit a crime, it must also
be the case that you should not helped out or abet activities
that defy the law
Donton v. Tansingco, Adm. Case No. 6057, June 27, 2006)
FACTS: Danton filed a criminal complaint for estafa thru
falsification of a public document against Stier, Maggay, and Atty
Tansingco as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy
Agreement. Danton averred that the act of preparing the Occupancy
Agreement, despite knowledge that Stier is a foreign nation and is
disqualified to own RP constitutes serious misconduct and is a
deliberate violation of the Code.
ISSUE: WON Atty Tansingco is liable?
RULING: Yes. A lawyer should not render any service or give
advice to any client which will involve defiance of the laws which he
is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a
dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an
act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.
Respondent admitted that Stier, a US citizen, was disqualified from
owning RP. Yet, respondent admitted that he caused in the transfer of
ownership to the parcel of land o Stier. By preparing the document,
he advised and aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional
prohibition against foreign ownership of lands by preparing said
documents.
Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated
his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy
Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands.
Penalty: Suspension of 6 months
 Even though he knew that foreigners are not supposed to
own land, he circumvented the law to allow the foreigner to
own a piece of land
QN: As a lawyer, your initial instinct in every case that comes to you
is what? To go to litigation? No. Do not be litigious. The best lawyers
are those who are good in amicable settlement.
Effect of Withdrawal of Complaint
Bernaldez v. Anquilo-Garcia, AC No. 8698, August 31, 2016
FACTS: Bernaldez filed a complaint charging Atty Anquilo-Garcia
with gross misconduct, deceit, violation of Lawyer’s Oath and abuse
of authority as notary public.
 Atty Anquilo-Garcia coerced and threatened registered
votes to sign blank and ready-made affidavits stating that
they were illiterate/disabled voters when in fact, they were
not. This scheme was to ensure her husband’s victory.
o They never appeared before Atty Anquilo-Garcia
nor was it possible for her to go to their place
which is far just to execute the affidavits on the
election day itself.
Atty Anquilo-Garcia denied having prepared the affidavits and
contended that what she prepared and notarized were affidavits of
affiants who sought her help and services as notary public so that
they may be allowed to vote with assistors because of difficulty in
reading and/or some physical disability. She also asserted that
complainants appeared before her.
Complainant filed his Affidavit of Withdrawal of the complaint
stating that he is desisting from pursuing the instant disbarment case.
The filing of the instant cases was due to misapprehension of facts
and misunderstanding of the incidents.
RULING: The fact that complainant filed a withdrawal of the
complaint during the pendency of this case is of no moment. The
complainant’s affidavit of desistance cannot have the effect of
abating the administrative proceedings in view of the public service
character of the practice of law and the nature of disbarment
proceedings as public interest concern.
No showing of evidence that Atty Anquilo-Garcia coerced any
registered voters to sign the alleged blank and ready-made affidavits
Violation of Notary Public Law – affiants did not appear personally
Penalty: Suspension for 6 months and disqualified to be reappointed
as notary public
February 17, 2021
What kind of purpose must we have?
3 characteristics of this purpose
1. Rock-solid - to have RS, you must
a. Lawyer for some bigger than you - the tragedy of life is
what dies inside a man while he lives
i. Opposite of barrenness is fruitfulness. When
we continue to lawyer for sth bigger than
yourself, you’re on fire
b. Bigger than your profession
i. Don’t confuse purpose with calling. Purpose
is the same from womb to tomb. Calling
changes as u move on in life.
ii. Find the purpose bigger than your calling.
So, when ur personal circumstances change,
ur purpose is still there.
c. It must be worth dying for.
i. Lawyering is a high-risk profession.
2. Fire-tested
3. Time-proven
DISCUSSION: What does it mean to lawyer for something bigger
than you?
Legal ethics
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES
AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER
COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
SpEthics (JGH) | 9
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall
not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent
necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.
Can a lawyer reject the cause of the defenseless or oppressed? Yes,
for valid reasons
 Valid reasons: See Rule 14.03
o he is not in a position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
o he labors under a conflict of interest between him
and the prospective client or between a present
client and the prospective client
Situation: You are a lawyer for the safety and protection of children.
An indigent client comes to you asking you to represent him in a crim
case for child molestation, and he is the accused and he admits to you
his guilt. Of course, it goes against your principle. You want to say
no, what reason would you give? Rule 14.03(a) – not be an effective
counsel if personally I don’t believe on the cause of the client
because I’m really on the side of the children
Can you refuse to render service to the son of Mr. Henry Sy? Yes,
because not defenseless or oppressed so you’re not compelled to take
on his case. But you have to be careful on what reason you give
because there are certain reasons that are not allowed by the Code.
 See Rule 14.01: declining solely on account of the latter's
race, sex, creed or status of life or his own opinion
regarding the guilt
Rodica vs. Lazaro
Atty. Espejo’s claim that he drafted and signed the pleading just to
extend assistance to Rodica deserves scant consideration. It is true
that under Rules 2.01 and 2.02, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the
cause of the defenseless or the oppressed, and in such cases, even if
he does not accept a case, shall not refuse to render legal advise to the
person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the
latter’s right. However, in this case, Rodica cannot be considered as
defenseless or oppressed considering that she is properly represented
by counsel in the RTC case. Needless to state, her rights are amply
safeguarded. It would have been different had Rodica not been
represented by any lawyer, which, however, is not the case.
Moreover, the Court wonders why Atty. Espejo, knowing fully well
that Rodica is not their law firm’s client and without the knowledge
and consent of his superiors, gave in to Rodica’s request for him to
indicate in the said motion the names of his law firm, Atty. Manuel
and Atty. Michelle for the purpose of "giving more weight and credit
to the pleading." As a member of the bar, Atty. Espejo ought to know
that motions and pleadings filed in courts are acted upon in
accordance with their merit or lack of it, and not on the reputation of
the law firm or the lawyer filing the same. More importantly, he
should have thought that in so doing, he was actually assisting Rodica
in misrepresenting before the RTC that she was being represented by
the said law firm and lawyers, when in truth she was not.
Before being a friend to Rodica, he is first and foremost an officer of
the court. Hence, he is expected to maintain a high standard of
honesty and fair dealings and must conduct himself beyond reproach
at all times. He must likewise ensure that he acts within the bounds of
reason and common sense, always aware that he is an instrument of
truth and justice. As shown by his actuations. Atty. Espejo fell short
of what is expected of him. Under the circumstances, Atty. Espejo
should have exercised prudence by first diligently studying the
soundness of Rodica’s pleas and the repercussions of his acts.
Penalty: Warned [before the filing of the disbarment complaint, Atty.
Espejo already caused the filing of his Motion to Withdraw
Appearance before the RTC. Therein, Atty. Espejo already expressed
remorse and sincere apologies to the RTC for wrongly employing the
name of the Lazaro Law Office]
 If Rodica has no counsel yet, is he bound to accept the
case? Is he considered defenseless if he has no lawyer?
When is a person considered defenseless? He has no means
to be able to hire a counsel or no accessed to a counsel.
Meaning, he’s indigent. Wala syang way to hire a lawyer;
he cannot pay. In that case, you are bound to help him
unless you have a valid reason to say no. But if the client is
rich and he has the means to hire a lawyer but no lawyer
yet, you are not bound because technically, he is not
defenseless.
QN: What is the most important word in Rule 2.03? Primarily
You are a government lawyer and after 10 years of being in DOLE,
you resigned as a LA and you decided to go into private practice.
Your friends are very happy for you so one of your friends posted in
FB: My friend is no longer in the government; he is accepting case.
He is an expert in labor law so dear friends, if u have any trouble in
legal work, come to my friend. He is one of the best in labor law.
 Is this a violation of Rule 2.03? Not primarily for the
purpose of solicitation but the real reason: congratulate you.
Zamora vs Gallanosa
FACTS: Zamora filed an administrative complaint against Atty
Gallanosa averring that outside the office of LA Arrazaga, where her
husband’s illegal dismissal case against DM Consunji was pending,
the latter approached her and inquired about the said case and the
papers that she has. When she showed the position paper prepared by
PAO, Atty Gallanosa remarked that “Walang kadating-dating ang
ginawa ng abogado ng PAO, matatalo ang demanda mo dyan.” She
also made remarked with the effect that there was collusion between
the LA and the lawyer that’s why the evidence was not attached to
the position paper. So, Atty Gallanosa opined that she should change
the position paper and subsequently listed the documents to be
attached to the new position paper, assuring her that once such was
completed, she will surely win the case.
Thus, Zamora went to Atty Gallanosa’s office and confirmed if it was
possible to replace the position paper to which the latter answered in
the affirmative. Zamora was also assured that another LA will handle
the case. When inquiring about the fees, she was informed that it
shall be 20% but on a contingent basis—payable only after the case is
won.
When Zamora submitted the new position paper, LA Arrazaga asked
whether Atty Gallanosa will attend the hearing to which a
SpEthics (JGH) | 10
confirmation through telephone call was made. However, Atty
Gallanosa failed to appear.
Subsequently, Zamora received notice of the decision. She informed
Atty Gallanosa who instructed her to send the notice via email as she
did not receive anything. She was assured that the necessary appeal
would be filed but none was made. When confronted, Atty Gallanosa
denied being Zamora’s lawyer. While she admitted that she prepared
the paper, the same was free of charge as a way to extend help to
complainant. She did not sign the pleading or entered appearance in
the case, nor was there any discussion or agreement on the
compensation
ISSUE: WON respondent should be administratively sanctioned for
the acts complained of?
RULING: Yes. Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides that “lawyer shall not
do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.” Thus, ambulance chasing or the solicitation of almost any
kind of business by an attorney, personally or through an agent, in
order to gain employment, is proscribed.
Lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not
a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants
advertise their wares. To allow lawyers to advertise their talents is to
commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the
public’s estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render high
character of service. Thus, lawyers in making known their legal
services must do so in a dignified manner. They are prohibited from
soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers.
Respondent admitted having met complainant and advising the latter
to see her in her office to discuss the labor case and prepare the
position paper—a clear case of practice of law.
A lawyer-client relationship was established from the very first
moment respondent discussed with the complainant the labor case of
her husband and advised her as to what legal course of action should
be pursued therein. By respondent’s acquiescence with the
consultation and her drafting of the position paper, a professional
employment was established between her and the complainant. To
constitute professional employment, it is not essential that the client
employed the attorney professional or nay previous occasion or that
nay retainer be paid, promised or charged. The fact that one is, at the
end of the day, not inclined to handle the client’s case, or that no
formal professional engagement follows the consultation or no
contract was executed to memorialize the relationship is hardly of
consequence. It is sufficient that the advise and assistance of an
attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his
profession.
Penalty: Suspension for 6 months with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt more severely.
 Can she defend herself by saying that she did not primarily
solicit legal business, she just happened to be there and
talked to the person? No. She approached her. She went out
of her way to talk to the person and eventually, succeeded
in getting the client.
o Would your answer be different if the client and
lawyer are friends? Yes, because she could have
said those words out of concern and not to solicit
 In Rule 2.03, you have to look into the context of what the
lawyer did or what the other person did.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL
SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED
AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services.
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed
name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is
permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said
partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from
the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law
allows him to practice law currently.
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives
of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal
business.
QN: You’re really good in litigation and you have your own website.
In that website, you are one of the best litigators in the Philippines
which is actually true, would it violate Rule 3.01? Might fall under
undignified because why would you trumpets your own achievements
and besides, it’s you who are making the statement.
 Review centers and they said: Atty. X is our lecturer; one
of the best litigators. Would it still be a violation of Rule
3.01? No. Already the opinion of others.
 What if a newspaper article says: Atty. X is one of the best
litigators in the country. Would it be a violation of Rule
3.01? Violation of Rule 3.04 if Atty. X paid.
 What if a lawyer has his own radio program and the radio
station, because they promote their programs would say:
batikang abogado. Is there a violation of Rule 3.04? None
[mere introductory] unless the time slot or the radio
program is paid by the lawyer.
 Legal radio program on air [paid], would that be
tantamount to attracting legal services? If to render legal
advice to public, not.
Dacanay v. Baker & Mckenzie,
FACTS: Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay in his 1980 verified complaint,
sought to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from
practising law under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm
organized in Illinois.
Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which contains
the names of the ten lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the release of
87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a
client.
RULING: Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot
practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in
Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the
world. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar,
practising under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or
associates of Baker & Mckenzie.
Respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a
representation that being associated with the firm they could "render
legal services of the highest quality to multinational business
SpEthics (JGH) | 11
enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment". This
is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise
law here.
Penalty: Respondents are enjoined from practising law under the
firm name Baker & McKenzie.
 What’s the advantage of using Baker & McKenzie? We are
known based on our merits—abilities and capabilities—as
lawyers. We don’t try to ride on the publicity of other, on
the reputation of others. We earn our keeps based on what
we achieve and to do as lawyers on our own merits.
CANONS 4 and 5: Upliftment in the Quality of Legal Services
Rendered to the Public
CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING
OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL
DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO
ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL
AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS
AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE.
B.M. No. 850     August 22, 2000
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE)
ADOPTING THE RULES ON MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES
RULE 1
PURPOSE
Section 1. Purpose of the MCLE
Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with
law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the
standards of the practice of law.
RULE 2
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
Section 1. Constitution of the MCLE Committee
Within two (2) months from the approval of these Rules by the Supreme Court
En Banc, the MCLE Committee shall be constituted in accordance with these
Rules.
Section 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE
Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete, every three (3)
years, at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education activities
approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics.
(b) At least (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and
procedural laws, and jurisprudence.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and
international conventions.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be
prescribed by the MCLE Committee.
RULE 3
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
Section 1. Initial compliance period
The initial compliance period shall begin not later than three (3) months from
the constitution of the MCLE Committee. Except for the initial compliance
period for members admitted or readmitted after the establishment of the
program, all compliance periods shall be for thirty-six (36) months and shall
begin the day after the end of the previous compliance period.
Section 2. Compliance Group 1.
Members in the National Capital Region (NCR) or Metro Manila shall be
permanently assigned to Compliance Group 1.
Section 3. Compliance Group 2.
Members in Luzon outside NCR shall be permanently assigned to Compliance
Group 2.
Section 4. Compliance Group 3.
Members in Visayas and Mindanao shall be permanently assigned to
Compliance Group 3.
Section 5. Compliance period for members admitted or readmitted after
establishment of the program.
Members admitted or readmitted to the Bar after the establishment of the
program shall be permanently assigned to the appropriate Compliance Group
based on their Chapter membership on the date of admission or readmission.
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin on
the first day of the month of admission or readmission and shall end on the
same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance Group.
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period after
admission or readmission, the member is not required to comply with the
program requirement for the initial compliance.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance period
after admission or readmission, the member shall be required to complete a
number of hours of approved continuing legal education activities equal to the
number of months remaining in the compliance period in which the member is
admitted or readmitted. Such member shall be required to complete a number
of hours of education in legal ethics in proportion to the number of months
remaining in the compliance period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to
the next whole number.
RULE 4
COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS
Section 1. Guidelines
The following are the guidelines for computation of credit units (CU):
PROGRAMS CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
SpEthics (JGH) | 12
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN-
HOUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES,
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER
RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED RULES
1.1 PARTICIPANT 1 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE
WITH NUMBER OF HOURS
1.2 LECTURER 5 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR
SPONSOR'S CERTIFICATION
1.3 RESOURCE 3 CU PER HOUR PHOTOCOPY OF PLAQUE OR
SPONSOR'S SPEAKER CERTIFICATION
1.4 ASSIGNED 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION FROM SPONSORING
PENALIST/ ORGANIZATION REACTOR/COMMENTATOR
1.5 MODERATOR/ 2 CU PER HOUR CERTIFICATION FROM
SPONSORING COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION FACILITATOR
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW
2.1 RESEARCH/ 5-10 CREDIT UNITS DULY CERTIFIED/PUBLISHED
INNOVATIVE TECHNICAL REPORT/PAPER PROGRAM/CREATIVE
PROJECT
2.2 BOOK 50-100 PP 101+ PUBLISHED BOOK SINGLE AUTHOR 12-16
CU 17-20 CU
2 AUTHORS 10-12 CU 13-16 CU
3 OR MORE 5-6 CU 7-11 CU
2.3 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK WITH
PROOF AUTHORSHIP AS EDITOR CATEGORY
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE 5-10 PP 11+ PUBLISHED ARTICLE SINGLE
AUTHOR 6 CU 8 CU
2 AUTHORS 4 CU 6 CU
3 OR MORE 2 CU 4 CU
2.5 LEGAL 3-6 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL
NEWSLETTER/LAW JOURNAL EDITOR
3. PROFESSIONAL 6 CU PER CHAIR CERTIFICATION OF LAW DEAN
CHAIR/BAR 1 CU PER LECTURE OR BAR REVIEW DIRECTOR
REVIEW/ HOUR LECTURE/LAW TEACHING
Section 2. Limitation on certain credit units
In numbers 2 and 3 of the guidelines in the preceding Section, the total
maximum credit units shall not exceed twenty (20) hours per three (3) years.
RULE 5
CATEGORIES OF CREDIT
Section 1. Classes of credits
The credits are either participatory or non-participatory.
Section 2. Claim for participatory credit
Participatory credit may be claimed for:
(a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences,
symposia, in-house education programs, workshops, dialogues or round table
discussions.
(b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator,
resource speaker, moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved education
activities.
(c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
Section 3. Claim for non-participatory credit
Non-participatory credit may be claimed per compliance period for:
(a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or
accepted for publication, e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or book
review which contribute to the legal education of the author member, which
were not prepared in the ordinary course of the member's practice or
employment.
(b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
RULE 6
COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS
Section 1. Computation of credit hours
Credit hours are computed based on actual time spent in an activity (actual
instruction or speaking time), in hours to the nearest one-quarter hour.
RULE 7
EXEMPTIONS
Section 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE
The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries
and Undersecretaries of Executives Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent
and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and
Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial
Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries
of the Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government
Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy
Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviews and professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least 10 years accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors
and Professorial Lectures of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
Section 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE
The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
SpEthics (JGH) | 13
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP
Board of Governors.
Section 3. 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 a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee.
Section 4. Change of status
The compliance period shall begin on the first day of the month in which a
member ceases to be exempt under Sections 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall
end on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance
Group.
Section 5. Proof of exemption
Applications for exemption from or modification of the MCLE requirement
shall be under oath and supported by documents.
RULE 8
STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Section 1. Approval of MCLE program
Subject to the rules as may be adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing
legal education program may be granted approval in either of two (2) ways:
(1) the provider of the activity is an approved provider and certifies that the
activity meets the criteria of Section 3 of this Rules; and (2) the provider is
specially mandated by law to provide continuing legal education.
Section 2. Standards for all education activities
All continuing legal education activities must meet the following standards:
(a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical content.
(b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related to
legal subjects and the legal profession, including cross profession activities
(e.g., accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance legal skills or the ability
to practice law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral advocacy.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate professional
experience.
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive written
materials must be distributed to all participants. Such materials must be
distributed at or before the time the activity is offered.
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and location so
as to be free from interruption like telephone calls and other distractions.
RULE 9
APPROVAL OF PROVIDERS
Section 1. Approval of providers
Approval of providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee.
Section 2. Requirements for approval of providers
Any persons or group may be approved as a provider for a term of two (2)
years, which may be renewed, upon written application. All providers of
continuing legal education activities, including in-house providers, are eligible
to be approved providers. Application for approval shall:
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the IBP;
(b) Contain all information requested on the form;
(c) Be accompanied by the approval fee;
Section 3. Requirements of all providers
All approved providers shall agree to the following:
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be
maintained by the provider for at least four (4) years after the completion date.
The provider shall include the member on the official record of attendance
only if the member's signature was obtained at the time of attendance at the
activity. The official record of attendance shall contain the member's name
and number in the Roll of Attorneys and shall identify the time, date, location,
subject matter, and length of the education activity. A copy of such record
shall be furnished the IBP.
(b) The provider shall certify that:
(1) This activity has been approved for MCLE by the IBP in the amount of
________ hours of which hours will apply in (legal ethics, etc.), as appropriate
to the content of the activity;
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities
prescribed by these Rules and such regulations as may be prescribed by the
IBP pertaining to MCLE.
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants
identifying the time, date, location, subject matter and length of the activity.
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved continuing
legal education activities by members of the IBP Board of Governors, the
MCLE Committee, or designees of the Committee and IBP staff for purposes
of monitoring compliance with these Rules.
(e) The provider shall indicate in promotional materials, the nature of the
activity, the time devoted to each devoted to each topic and identify of the
instructors. The provider shall make available to each participant a copy of
IBP-approved Education Activity Evaluation Form.
(f) The provider shall maintain the completed Education Activity Evaluation
Forms for a period of not less than one (1) year after the activity, copy
furnished the IBP.
(g) Any person or group who conducts an unauthorized activity under this
program or issues a spurious certificate in violation of these Rules shall be
subject to appropriate sanctions.
Section 4. Renewal of provider approval
The approval of a provider may be renewed every two (2) years. It may be
denied if the provider fails to comply with any of the requirements of these
Rules or fails to provide satisfactory education activities for the preceding
period.
Section 5. Revocation of provider approval
The approval of any provider referred to in Rule 9 may be revoked by a
majority vote of the IBP Board of Governors, upon recommendation of the
MCLE Committee, after notice and hearing and for good cause.
RULE 10
ACTIVITY AND PROVIDER APPROVAL FEE
Section 1. Payment of fees
Application for approval of an education activity or as a provider requires
payment of an appropriate fee.
RULE 11
GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
SpEthics (JGH) | 14
Section 1. Compliance card
Each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card
before the end of his compliance period. He shall complete the card by
attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement or
that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance
Card must be returned to the address indicated therein not later than the day
after the end of the member's compliance period.
Section 2. Member record keeping requirement
Each member shall maintain sufficient record of compliance or exemption,
copy furnished the MCLE Committee. The record required to be provided to
the members by the provider pursuant to Section 3(c) of Rule 9 should be
sufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-
participatory activity shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in
Section 3 of Rule 5.
RULE 12
NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Section 1. What constitutes non-compliance
The following shall constitute non-compliance
(a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance
period;
(b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence
of exempt status) within the prescribed period;
(d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such
compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of a non-compliance notice;
(e) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to
circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.
Section 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain compliance
A member failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the
specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the date of
notification to explain the deficiency or otherwise show compliance with the
requirements. Such notice shall contain, among other things, the following
language in capital letters:
YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION FOR
NON-COMPLIANCE OR PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE
REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
NOTICE), SHALL BE A CAUSE FOR LISTING AS A DELINQUENT
MEMBER.
The Member may use this period to attain the adequate number of credit hours
for compliance. Credit hours earned during this period may only be counted
toward compliance with the prior compliance period requirement unless hours
in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case, the excess hours may
be counted toward meeting the current compliance period
requirement.lawphil.net
RULE 13
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Section 1. Non-compliance fee
A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the
compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee.
Section 2. Listing as delinquent member
Any member who fails to satisfactorily comply with Section 2 of Rule 12 shall
be listed as a delinquent member by the IBP Board of Governors upon the
recommendation of the MCLE Committee, in which case, Rule 139-A of the
Rules of Court shall apply.
RULE 14
REINSTATEMENT
Section 1. Process
The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated when the
member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE requirement, including
payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary credit
hours to meet the requirement for the period of non-compliance during the
period the member is on inactive status. These credit hours may not be
counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement. Credit
hours attained during the period of non-compliance in excess of the number
needed to satisfy the prior compliance period requirement may be counted
toward meeting the current compliance period requirement.lawphil.net
Section 2. Termination of delinquent listing administrative process
The termination of listing as a delinquent member is administrative in nature
but it shall be made with notice and hearing by the MCLE Committee.
RULE 15
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Section 1. Composition
The MCLE Committee shall be composed of five (5) members, namely: a
retired Justice of the Supreme Court, as Chair, and four (4) members,
respectively, nominated by the IBP, the Philippine Judicial Academy, a law
center designated by the Supreme Court and associations of law schools
and/or law professors.
The members of the Committee shall be of proven probity and integrity. They
shall be appointed by the Supreme Court for a term of three (3) years and shall
receive such compensation as may be determined by the Court.
Section 2. Duty of the Committee
The MCLE Committee shall administer and adopt such implementing rules as
may be necessary subject to the approval by the Supreme Court. It shall, in
consultation with the IBP Board of Governors, prescribe a schedule of MCLE
fees with the approval of the Supreme Court.
Section 3. Staff of the IBP
The IBP shall employ such staff as may be necessary to perform the record-
keeping, auditing, reporting, approval and other necessary functions.
Section 4. Submission of annual budget
The IBP shall submit to the Supreme Court an annual budget for a subsidy to
establish, operate and maintain the MCLE Program.
This resolution shall take effect in October 2000, following its publication in
two (2) newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
Adopted this 22nd day of August, 2000.
Arnado v. Adaza
 Who determines if you’re an expert or not? It’s not
yourself; you cannot be your own judge
 It doesn’t matter if you’re an expert or not, you have to wait
for the MCLE’s decision if you file for exemption.
o There will be exemptions re compliance with
MCLE BUT DON’T PRESUME until your
exemption is approved.
SpEthics (JGH) | 15

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN
GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR
TASKS.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not
to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused
is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public
position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.
Berenguer vs Florin
FACTS: The Berenguers, registered owners of a land which is the
subject of acquisition pursuant to CARP, protested and applied for
the exclusion of their land based on the ground that their landholdings
have been used exclusively for livestock. The DAR Secretary
cancelled the Berenguers’ certificates of title on the land and issued
Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in favor of the
members of the BARIBAG.
Eventually, their application for exclusion from the CARP’s coverage
was denied. So, the Berenguers appealed. While the case was pending
appeal, BARIBAG filed a petition for the implementation of the
Order which was granted by Florin (for RARAD). Accordingly,
Florin directed the issuance and implementation of the Writ of
Possession.
The Berengers filed appeals to question the order and writ of
possession but to no avail. Thus, this Complaint for disbarment
against Florin, Jornales, and Vega for allegedly conspiring and
confederating in the issuance of the writ of possession.
ISSUE: WON respondents are administratively liable even if the
grounds asserted by the Berengers against the respondents are
intrinsically connected with the discharge of their judicial function?
RULING: Yes. The grounds asserted by the complainants in support
of the charges against the respondents, however, are intrinsically
connected with the discharge of their quasi-judicial functions.
Nevertheless, if a misconduct as a government official also
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then a lawyer may
be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar, viz:
Generally speaking, 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. However, if said misconduct as a government
official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer, then he may be disciplined by this Court as a
member of the Bar.
xxxx
A member of the Bar who assumes public office does
not shed his professional obligations. Hence, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, promulgated on June 21, 1988,
was not meant to govern the conduct of private
practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in
government service. This is clear from Canon of said Code.
Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the
utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus, they should be
more sensitive in the performance of their professional
obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant
scrutiny of the public.
x x x For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to
refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen
the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, she
must also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all
times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is
a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high
degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her
brethren in private practice.
The appeal of the Berenguers to the DAR Secretary clearly stayed the
implementation of Regional Director Dalugdug’s Order dated
February 15, 1999. Moreover, it is the DAR Secretary who has
jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal. Records reveal that
there was no order by the DAR Secretary directing execution of the
Order dated February 15, 1999 during the pendency of the
Berenguers’ appeal.
Penalty: Suspension for 2 months without pay; Jornales and Vega –
complaint was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence
QN: If you’re a lawyer and Undersecretary, you’re investigating a
case of one of your subordinates, and while you’re investigating the
case, nainis ka sa subordinate because disrespectful so you started
berating, insulting + binato mo ng ash tray. He filed a case against
you sa IBP. Do you think you can use as a defense that you’re just
performing your duty as undersecretary? Do you think you’ll be held
liable under CPR? YES. The act of throwing an ash tray is not part of
your duty as an undersecretary.
Spouses Buffe vs Gonzales
Respondent’s argument: The Court has no jurisdiction because a case
for violation of RA 6713 and civil service rules should be filed with
the Civil Service Commission and a case for violation of RA 3019
should be filed with the Sandiganbayan
ISSUE: WON the Court has jurisdiction to try the case?
RULING: NO. Both Exconde and Madrona are public officers being
charged for actions, which are allegedly unfair and discriminatory,
involving their official functions during their tenure, the present case
should be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman as the
appropriate government agency. 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. Moreover, an anomalous situation will arise if the
IBP asserts jurisdiction and decides against a government lawyer,
while the disciplinary authority finds in favor of the government
lawyer.
Decision: Case dismissed
 Difference with Berenguer: On the act itself. The act here
in this case involves misjudgment or possible mistake in the
act committed or possible mistake in the application of the
rule.
 Whether it was tainted in bad faith is not an issue here. The
interest of the Court is to make sure that the lawyer is
acting with integrity in line with the dignity of the
profession.
o Even if you are discharging your functions as a
government lawyer, but in doing so, you act in a
way that reflects a flawed character which
SpEthics (JGH) | 16
 reflects in your ability to perform your function
as a member of the bar, then the SC can
discipline you because the very reputation of the
bar is already affected by your actions.
QN: Based on Rules 6.01-6.03, a government lawyer who resigns and
goes to private practice, can he practice his profession after leaving
government service? Yes, he can.
 What is prohibited by R6.03? accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service
Used to work in Ombudsman. Resigned. There is a new case, can you
be the counsel in that case? Right away? You cannot appear before
the same agency within a year because the presumption is that you
still have lots of close friends there that you can take advantage of.
 If asked to appear in a case which you handled even after
one year? NO. Prohibition in R6.03 – perpetual prohibition.
o Why? The presumption is you are in an
advantage because you handled the case
Pasok vs Zapatos
FACTS: This administrative case concerns the respondent, a retired
judge who took on the case that he had intervened in during his
incumbency on the Bench. The charge specified that the respondent
was guilty of "representing adverse interest, illegal practice of law,
conduct and (sic) becoming as a former member of the bench and
conduct unbecoming in violation of the canons of legal ethics with
prayer for disbarment”
Respondent’s defense: He cannot be charged nor penalized of any
violation as the counsel of the defendants because when he rendered
the first judgment in the Forcible Entry case, he believes he was
completely in absolute neutrality. Respondent, likewise, justified his
appearance as counsel for the defendants on the ground that he is
encountering extreme poverty due to the absence of adequate income
and as a source of livelihood he was constrained to handle the
aforesaid case.
Respondent as Presiding Judge inhibited himself from conducting the
trial of the two (2) cases as provided for in his Order dated 17
January 1996 on the ground that complainant as counsel for the
plaintiffs and petitioner in the aforesaid cases have doubted the
absolute neutrality or impartiality of respondent. After inhibiting
himself from these cases, respondent was promoted as Regional Trial
Court Judge until he retired from the Judiciary. Thereafter, on
account of the fact that respondent needs income in order to survive
or he would die of starvation, he engaged in the private practice of
law. Four (4) years after he retired from the judiciary and more than
ten (1 0) years after he inhibited himself from conducting said trial,
he filed a Manifestation for the defendants.
ISSUE: WON Atty Zapatos is administratively liable?
RULING: Yes. Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:
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.
To come within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the respondent must be shown to have accepted the
engagement or employment in relation to a matter that, by virtue of
his judicial office, he had previously exercised power to influence the
outcome of the proceedings. That showing was sufficiently made
herein.
In his capacity as the judge, respondent presided over the case before
eventually inhibiting himself from further proceedings. His act of
presiding constituted intervention within the meaning of the rule
whose text does not mention the degree or length of the intervention
in the particular case or matter. It is also plain and unquestionable
that Canon 36, supra, from which the canon was derived, prohibited
him as a former member of the Bench from handling any case upon
which he had previously acted in a judicial capacity. In this context,
he not only exercised the power to influence the outcome of the
proceedings but also had a direct hand in bringing about the result of
the case by virtue of his having the power to rule on it.
The restriction extended to engagement or employment. The
respondent could not accept work or employment from anyone that
would involve or relate to any matter in which he had intervened as a
judge except on behalf of the body or authority that he served during
his public employment. The restriction as applied to him lasted
beyond his tenure in relation to the matters in which he had
intervened as judge. Accordingly, the fact that he was already retired
from the Bench, or that he was already in the private practice of law
when he was engaged for the case was inconsequential.
Although the respondent removed himself from the cases once his
neutrality and impartiality were challenged, he ultimately did not stay
away from the cases following his retirement from the Bench, and
acted thereon as a lawyer for and in behalf of the defendants.
His representing the defendants in the civil cases was not the only
way by which he could improve his dire financial situation. It would
not be difficult for him, being a lawyer and a former member of the
Bench, to accept clients whom he could ethically represent in a
professional capacity. If the alternatives open to him were not
adequate to his liking, he had other recourses, like serving as a notary
public under a valid commission. His taking on of the defendants'
civil cases despite his previous direct intervention thereon while still
a member of the Bench was impermissible. He should have
maintained his ethical integrity by avoiding the engagement by the
defendants.
Penalty: Suspended for 1 month with warning that a similar offense
by him will be dealt with more severely.
Duque Jr. v. Brillantes, Jr.
FACTS: Disbarment case against a Commissioner of COMELEC
ISSUE: WON the disbarment case filed against respondent
commissioners may proceed?
RULING: NO. An impeachable officer who is a member of the Bar
cannot be disbarred without first being impeached. At the time the
present complaint was filed, respondents-commissioners were all
lawyers. As impeachable officers who are at the same time the
members of the Bar, respondents-commissioners must first be
removed from office via the constitutional route of impeachment
before they may be held to answer administratively for their supposed
erroneous resolutions and actions.
Even if the Court were to look into the assailed actions of
respondents-commissioners, there were no specific actuations and
sufficient evidence to show that respondents did engage in dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct in their capacity as lawyers.
The appreciation of the contested ballots and election documents
involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the
SpEthics (JGH) | 17
COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with the supervision of
elections all over the country.
The assailed actions of the respondents pertain to their quasi-judicial
functions. The quasi-judicial function of the COMELEC embraces
the power to resolve controversies arising from the enforcement of
election laws, and to be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation
controversies; and of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications. Thus, the COMELEC, in resolving the subject
complaint, was exercising its quasi-judicial power in pursuit of the
truth behind the allegations in the complaint. The fact that the
COMELEC's resolution was adverse to the complainant, in the
absence of grave abuse of discretion, does not make a case for
disbarment.
A judge's failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the
evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively
liable. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross
ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be
administratively sanctioned. To hold otherwise would be to render
judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or
interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be
infallible in his judgment.
The object of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to punish the
individual attorney himself, as to safeguard the administration of
justice by protecting the court and the public from the misconduct of
officers of the court, and to remove from the profession of law
persons whose disregard for their oath of office have proved them
unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of
the bar.
Decision: Case dismissed
February 24, 2021
Practical ethics
Characteristics of the kind of purpose that we must have:
1. Rock-solid
2. Fire-tested
Fire is anything that purifies your purpose.
 How gold is made? Placed in furnace and when the gold is
removed, it becomes more beautiful because its impurities have
been removed because of the fire.
 A lawyer is like placed inside a furnace called the legal profession
and it is subjected to several fire-like tests inside such that when
the lawyer is eventually removed from the furnace, he becomes a
better person—his feet are firmly grounded yet his heart and his
mind continue to hold the idolism that he had when he first entered
the profession.
o “Adversity introduces a man to himself.”
What are these fire-like tests?
1) Pressure. It’s ironic that in law school, we have been subject to a
lot of pressure and yet, many lawyers, when they start to practice
their profession, succumb to pressure.
 Don’t let pressure bring out the worst in you rather, let
pressure bring out the best in you.
2) Practicality. When you take shortcuts in the legal profession
because of practicality, you might end up being ran over—you lose
your license, get disbarred, or suspended
 Example: Non-compliance with notarial law re personal
appearance
 SOLUTION: Learn not what is illegal but what is extra-
legal
i. The reason why we take shortcuts is we
want to get things done fast and we end up
doing illegal things. So, don’t do what is
illegal rather do what is extra-legal  things
you do more than what’s legal (being kind to
people in the court room; not bribing).
3) Pride. Many lawyers because of their pride end up compromising
their values. They don’t want to lose a case so they bribed the
judge
 SOLUTION: Don’t let pride defeat your purpose.
Rather, let pride fulfill your purpose.
4) Pain. Saturate don’t separate. Instead of leaving the profession,
saturate it with good lawyers.
3. Time-proven.
”As distance shows a horse’s strength, so time reveals a person’s heart.”
If you are really bent on becoming a good lawyer, only time will tell. And
people whose purpose is clear and filled with conviction, you are convinced
with your purpose, you are able to withstand the test of time. And that is the
challenge for us.
How do we do that?
 Differentiate enthusiasm with zeal
o Enthusiasm goes up and down. It does not withstand the
test of time.
o Zeal is consistent regardless of what’s happening in
your career, you will continue to be the best lawyer you
can be.
Legal ethics
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false
statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for
admission to the bar.
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar
of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character,
education, or other relevant attribute.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
QN: In his application to the bar, a person applies for admission to
the bar and he states there that he is not married because to him,
marriage pertains to the church and he believes that his previous civil
marriage is not valid for several reasons. He places there “Single” in
his application. Would it be a violation of R7.01?
 Is the kind of information that you will withhold is material
under R7.01? Or is it enough that you withhold information
to violate R7.01?
What if there is a case filed in court, he presumed that, because the
case is already dismissed on the lower court, there is no more case
because he had been acquitted in the lower court, and he does not
declare that fact, would he be guilty of misrepresentation? YES.
 What if he is not aware that there is a case filed against
him? Why? It must be knowingly making a false statement
o Whose burden it is to prove that he is not aware?
The applicant
SpEthics (JGH) | 18
You have to be very careful when you make the application for
admission in the bar, u have to make sure that you have all the facts
that you need to know with you before filing that application because
u can actually be held liable even before u r admitted to the bar.
In Rule 7.02, is it enough that you chose not to indorse somebody
who is asking for your indorsement just because that person believes
in, [for instance, u don’t believe in annulment as u believe in the
sanctity of marriage] divorce. So, u chose not to indorse that person
who wants to be admitted to the bar because you think that he’ll be a
bad lawyer if he becomes a lawyer. Would that be a valid reason to
refuse indorsing that person?
 Can a lawyer be compelled to indorse someone? YES, for
as long as you have a justifiable reason
Reyes vs. Nieves
Watching pornographic material on his laptop during office hours
inside the office premises
Liable? YES.
respondent habitually watches pornographic materials in his office-
issued laptop while inside the office premises, during office hours,
and with the knowledge and full view of his staff. Obviously, the
Court cannot countenance such audacious display of depravity on
respondent's part not only because his obscene habit tarnishes the
reputation of the government agency he works for - the CAAP where
he was engaged at that time as Acting Corporate Secretary - but also
because it shrouds the legal profession in a negative light. As a
lawyer in the government service, respondent is expected to perform
and discharge his duties with the highest degree of excellence,
professionalism, intelligence, and skill, and with utmost devotion and
dedication to duty. However, his aforesaid habit miserably fails to
showcase these standards, and instead, displays sheer
unprofessionalism and utter lack of respect to the government
position he was entrusted to hold. His flimsy excuse that he only does
so by himself and that he would immediately close his laptop
whenever anyone would pass by or come near his table is of no
moment, because the lewdness of his actions, within the setting of
this case, remains. The legal profession - much more an engagement
in the public service should always be held in high esteem, and those
who belong within its ranks should be unwavering exemplars of
integrity and professionalism. As keepers of the public faith, lawyers,
such as respondent, are burdened with a high degree of social
responsibility and, hence, must handle their personal affairs with
greater caution. Indeed, those who have taken the oath to assist in the
dispensation of justice should be more possessed of the consciousness
and the will to overcome the weakness of the flesh, as respondent in
this case
 What if he did it in office but not in full view of everyone
else, what if he did it privately? Should he be held liable?
What if outside office hours?
o Is watching pornographic material, whether in
public or private, reflects a bad character?
 What if he did it in the comfort of his home, just by
himself?
 He was held liable under R7.03 – scandalous.
 What if sneaking drugs, in private? What if hiring a
prostitute, no one knows?
 See Eala vs Guevarra case. The word scandalous here is
irrelevant if the public knows about it or not. Scandalous
means that if the public knows about it, will the public be
scandalized. That is the question there.
!!! If the public will know about it, will the public be scandalized.
Because if yes, then it already goes to your character as a person. In
the case of Eala, no crime was committed.
 It doesn’t matter if it is a crime or not, the public knows it
or not, if you’re doing something that if the public would
know about it, then the public would be scandalized, then
that’s the test. SC is looking at not just the immediate effect
to the profession but the possible effect to the profession if
people will know about your private acts.
Belo-Henares vs Guevarra
Atty Guevarra says something negative about Dr Belo. But he uses
his Facebook account.
RULING: Respondent's inappropriate and obscene language, and his
act of publicly insulting and undermining the reputation of
complainant through the subject Facebook posts are, therefore, in
complete and utter violation of R7.03
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant
and BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is
bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or
private life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner
befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and
decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words
unbecoming of an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an
aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning complainant's and
BMGI's reputation.
 Is he charged with a crime?
 Defense: Private account to e. But the SC is looking at not
only to the effect to the profession but to the character of
the lawyer. That regardless of WON the act of the lawyer
can be seen or not does not matter. You are looking at the
character of the lawyer.
 Doesn’t matter if it becomes public or not. It doesn’t matter
if it discredits the profession or not. If the act of the lawyer
is scandalous and it reflects on his character as a lawyer or
person, SC will discipline.
A lawyer is held to a higher standard when it comes to behavior in
private and public conduct compared to ordinary person. That is the
exchange as you get the respect of the society and you get to earn
your keep but you have to surrender a part of your “freedom”. When
you enter the profession, you cannot dichotomize your professional
life and private life. Who you are in public must be who you are in
private. As only lawyers who are morally and ethically fit are
allowed to practice the law.
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.
SpEthics (JGH) | 19
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.
QN: You’re already a lawyer. You berated a waiter while eating
outside. Finile-an ka under R8.01. Would you be held liable? No, it is
not in his professional dealings.
 Are you not liable? No, See Canon 7
 What is the distinctive thing in Canon 8? Involves
relationship or dealings with other lawyers, judges, and the
court
o Don’t use Canon 8 to charge a lawyer for an act
that has nothing to do with his performance of his
duty as a lawyer. BUT it doesn’t mean that he is
no longer liable. There are other Canons available
but not 8 because it has something to do with
your professional dealings.
Aseron vs Diño
Atty. Habitan, counsel for complainant, demanded from NATI
damages. However, respondent replied with a letter couched in
abusive, disrespectful language, malicous and unfounded accusations
and besmirched his reputation alleging that complainant used his
influence in persuading the former handling Prosecutor, not to allow
the release of the Passenger Bus
RULING: Canon 8 of the CPR directs all members of the bar to
conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their
fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Specifically, in Rule 8.01.
He imputed to the complainant the use of his influence as a former
public prosecutor to harass his clients during the inquest proceedings
without sufficient proof or evidence to support the same.
As an officer of the court, the respondent could have aired his charge
against the complainant in a proper forum and without using
offensive and abusive language. He should refrain from being
tempted by the adversarial nature of our legal system to use strong
language in pursuit of his duty to advance the interest of his client.
When he mentioned that Complainant had used his influence in
persuading the fiscal, he used a language which was abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper. He showed ill-feelings toward
Complainant and allowed such feeling to influence him in his
conduct and demeanor towards the latter.
Though lawyers are entitled to present their case with vigor and
courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and
abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for
one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory,
illuminating but not offensive.
 Is it a justification to use abusive language for as long as it
is justified or has basis? No, even if it has basis and it is
really true that the complainant is using his influence, it
doesn’t give license to a lawyer to use abusive language.
o Just because you have a good basis to impute
something against another lawyer doesn’t give u
a right to do it in a way that is abusive and
improper. There is a proper forum for it.
Sometimes, it is not what you say but how you
say it that really matters. Even if you’re saying is
true, if it is said without respect, you can be held
liable under this provision.
Chavez vs Lazaro
The disbarment case arose in connection with the pleading filed by
respondents in their opposition to the motion for inhibition filed by
the complainant. Said pleading questioned the existence of Petition
for Review before the DOJ, which was allegedly filed by the
complainant and used by them in order to suspend the arraignment of
their client. The pleading also accused respondents of antedating the
filing or mailing of the Petition for Review.
RULING: This Court has repeatedly urged lawyers to utilize only
respectful and temperate language in the preparation of pleadings, in
keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. Their arguments,
whether written or oral, should be gracious to both the court and the
opposing counsel and should consist only of such words as may be
properly addressed by one honorable member of the bar to another.
Respondents twice accused complainant of antedating a petition it
had filed with the DOJ without any proof whatsoever. This allegation
of impropriety undoubtedly brought complainant and its lawyers into
disrepute. The accusation also tended to mislead the courts, as it was
made without hesitation notwithstanding the absence of any
evidentiary support. The Court cannot condone this irresponsible and
unprofessional behavior.
 If they accused the complainant but they did it in a
respectful way, would it make a difference? YES.
 If they don’t have evidence to show or no basis? Not
abusive or offensive but it is IMPROPER  because no
basis.
!!! Even if you have basis to impute something against a fellow
lawyer, if you say it wrongly, abusively, or offensively, you can be
liable. Even if you say it nicely but you have no basis for saying so,
you can still be held liable.
 If you have good basis, say it properly: in the proper forum
and in the proper way.
o So, say it properly + basis
Spouses Nuezca vs Divinagracia
Respondent sent them a demand letter which contained not only
threatening but libelous utterances. The demand letter seriously
maligned and ridiculed complainants to its recipients. Also, several
news clippings were attached to the demand letter that were intended
to sow fear in them.
RULING: The demand letter that respondent sent to complainants
contained not merely a demand for them to settle their monetary
obligations to respondent's client, but also used words that maligned
their character. It also imputed crimes against them, i.e., that they
were criminally liable for worthless or bum checks and estafa.
Respondent could have simply stated the ultimate facts relative to the
alleged indebtedness of complainants to his client, made the demand
for settlement thereof, and refrained from the imputation of criminal
offenses against them, especially considering that there is a proper
forum therefor and they have yet to be found criminally liable by a
SpEthics (JGH) | 20
court of proper jurisdiction. Respondent's use of demeaning and
immoderate language put complainants in shame and disgrace.
Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should
always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions
has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Language abounds with
countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive. All
lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts
who are mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession,
hence, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Thus,
respondent ought to temper his words in the performance of his duties
as a lawyer and an officer of the court.
 Did they use the right legal way to demand? Yes BUT the
manner
o So you might be using the correct legal process
but if the manner by which you do it isn’t right,
the court will still hold you liable.
Atty Dimaculangan vs Atty Jurado and Sta Ana
Atty Dimaculangan filed an administrative case against Atty Jurado
and Sta. Ana. She alleged that while she was inside the courtroom
and while other lawyers are present, they were informed that the
scheduled proceedings were postponed because the presiding judge
was in a seminar at the Supreme Court. While waiting for the staff to
reset the hearing, Jurado entered the courtroom where the 2 engaged
in a casual conversation.
RULING: Only Sta Ana was held liable.
Membership in the bar imposes upon lawyers certain obligations to
one another. These include observance of honorable, candid and
courteous dealings with other lawyers, as provided in Canon 8.
Sta Ana’s remarks against Dimaculangan in front of other lawyers
exhibit unprofessional conduct. While he may be frustrated of
Dimaculangan’s actuations, this does not excuse him from not
treating his opposing counsel with courtesy, dignity, and civility.
Aside from scolding her, Sta Ana publicly berated her by saying that
she erroneously filed a wrong motion. This criticism was uncalled for
considering that Dimaculangan was only performing her legal duty of
protecting the interest of a client.
A cordial and collaborative atmosphere among lawyers is expected.
Sta Ana could have privately aired his exasperation with
Dimaculangan. The latter even exercised camaraderie by writing an
apology letter immediately after the confrontation at the postponed
hearing. Despite this letter, Sta Ana let his emotional attitude get the
better of him.
 What did Dimaculangan do that led Sta Ana to berate her?
 Sta Ana’s response [to get angry] had basis BUT the
manner by which he expressed his anger was wrong.
o What if he did it an open court? Does it matter?
YES
!!! Even if the acts complained of happened not during actual
courtroom proceedings, lawyers are not acting as lawyers, you are
still required to act in a way that depicts your profession as a lawyer
CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,
ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of
the Bar in good standing.
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:
a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that,
upon the latter’s death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time
to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or
b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a
deceased lawyer; or
c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement
plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profitable sharing
arrangement.
For instance, you are a law student and at the same time, working for
a law office. And the lawyer in the law office comes up to you and
asked you to attend a hearing and tell them that he can’t come to the
court. So, you go to court. You waited for the judge and “call to
order”. You requested for postponement of hearing as the handling
lawyer can’t come. The other party knows that you’re a law student.
 Would you be liable under R9.01? No, law student but you
can be held in contempt.
 Would the lawyer be liable? YES.
o His defense: Just to go to court and to ask for
postponement not to appear in court. What should
you have done now that you know that you can
appear in court? Go to the court, before the
hearing, inform the court right away that the
lawyer cannot make it. And ask the court to
inform the other counsel that the lawyer cannot
make
o BUT NEVER SHOULD YOU APPEAR IN
COURT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AN
OFFICER OF THE COURT.
 Only an officer of the court can address
the court
Tapay vs Bancolo
Acts complained of: Secretary signed the pleading
RULING: Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a
former client before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his
name by a secretary of his law office. Clearly, this is a violation of
Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy.
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The
permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited
privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper
standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to
protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the
incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and
not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a
lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics
SpEthics (JGH) | 21
of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or
his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized
practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law
makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to
aid a layman in the 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. Atty. Bancolo’s authority and duty
to sign a pleading are personal to him. Although he may delegate the
signing of a pleading to another lawyer, he may not delegate it to a
non-lawyer. Further, under the Rules of Court, counsel’s signature
serves as a certification that (1) he has read the pleading; (2) to the
best of his knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to
support it; and (3) it is not interposed for delay. Thus, by affixing
one’s signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone who has the
responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the
document.
 What if the secretary signed the pleading with her own
name, would Atty Bancolo be held liable? Because, here
the secretary signed FOR, what if she signed under her
name? No overt consent by the lawyer but the pleading was
filed in court by the law office, will he be held liable? Yes,
negligent
o Acts: Signed and filed.
o What if the secretary only signed but not filed, is
there a violation? No. It was the filing that
converted that document in a legal document.
!!! Read the pleading before you file it and make sure that you,
yourself, signed it.
Petelo vs Atty Rivera
Act which was supposedly violated R9.01: unauthorized filing of a
complaint by allowing the staff of a disbarred lawyer to use his
signature
RULING: Atty. Rivera's act of allowing persons other than himself to
use his signature in signing papers and pleadings, in effect, allowed
non-lawyers to practice law. Worse, he failed to display or even
manifest any zeal or eagerness to unearth the truth behind the events
which led to his involvement in the filing of the unauthorized civil
suit, much less to rectify the situation. Although he claimed that the
signatures were forgeries, there was nary a display of willingness on
his part to pursue any legal action against the alleged forgers. On the
contrary, he openly admitted his association with a disbarred lawyer
and their ongoing agreement to allow the latter to use his signature
and "details" in the preparation of pleadings. By so doing, Atty.
Rivera not only willingly allowed a non-lawyer to practice law;
worse, he allowed one to continue to practice law notwithstanding
that this Court already stripped him of his license to practice law.
 The act of signing a pleading belongs only to a lawyer.
What’s so special about a lawyer’s signature? That
particular pleading suddenly becomes not just a mere scrap
of paper. It now becomes a legal document specially when
you file it in court. Unless, you are not authorized yourself.
[Di ka MCLE credited, not paying IBP dues.]
 Is it correct to say that lawyers can write a pleading? Isn’t
that an act that only lawyer can do?
o That’s what lawyers do. They let somebody else
write the pleading, read it before they affixed
their signature. It’s okay to delegate the writing
of anything but be very protective of your
signature. Don’t affix your signature on
document unless you read it.
March 3, 2021
Practical ethics
2. ETHICS
“Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what’s right.” – Isaac
Asimov
 Does this make sense? It is possible for your morals to get in the
way of you doing what’s right? YES.
o See case of People vs Judge Veneracion: Case of a
God-fearing judge and in his sala was raffled a case of
rape for homicide. The evidence is overwhelming and
he was forced to convict the accused. The penalty at
that time was death penalty. But because the judge is a
God-fearing man, he decided that instead of imposing
the death penalty, he will impose reclusion perpetua.
 RULING: Judge had no basis to impose RP
in place of the death penalty.
 We are aware of the trial judge's misgivings
in imposing the death sentence because of
his religious convictions. While this Court
sympathizes with his predicament, it is its
bounden duty to emphasize that a court of
law is no place for a protracted debate on the
morality or propriety of the sentence, where
the law itself provides for the sentence of
death as a penalty in specific and well-
defined instances. The discomfort faced by
those forced by law to impose the death
penalty is an ancient one, but it is a matter
upon which judges have no choice.
o The morals of the judge, as a God-fearing man, in a
sense got in the way in him doing what was right,
according to the law.
 There is a subtle distinction between ethics and morality
o Ethics is carved in stone [CPR]. Morality is etched in
our hearts [our conscience]. C.S. Lewis in his book
“Mere Christianity” defines conscience as the moral
law.
 Ethics and morality are very much related to
each other but not exactly one and same
o Ethics is the principles of conduct governing an
individual or a group [Merriam-Webster] or the rules or
standards governing the conduct of a person or the
members of a profession [Fee-Online dictionary]
 Two elements of ethics:
1. Conduct or the way a person act
2. Group within which that person
acts
 The concern of ethics is for the person to act
in the way that is acceptable to his or her
group regardless of his/her moral beliefs.
 “A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on
sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis
is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” –
Albert Einstein
 Do not confuse ethics with morality. Ethics and morality are very
much related. In fact, the basis of our ethics is morality but they are
not one and the same.
Legal ethics
THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
SpEthics (JGH) | 22
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the
text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which
has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
In Re: Supreme Court Resolution dated 28 April 2003
The documents that he presented was only sent to him
 Atty Peña: I was doing it in good faith. Is good faith a
defense in this situation? No.
o Validate first before presenting anything in court.
Otherwise, your negligence is tantamount to
bad faith if you could have validly authenticated
the document but you did not.
 Due diligence is key before you submit
anything in court.
Molina vs Magat
Act committed by the lawyer: Filed MTD on the ground of double
jeopardy [when there’s none]
RULING: There was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Magat to
mislead the court when he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal
charges on the basis of double jeopardy. Atty. Magat should not make
any false and untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were true
that there was a similar case for slight physical injuries that was
really filed in court, all he had to do was to secure a certification from
that court that, indeed, a case was filed.
 He was asserting that he was of the honest belief that there
was DJ. But did he verify? No.
o If you have the ability and the opportunity to
validate certain information hat you are using in
the court, do that and NOT RELY merely on your
belief or impression.
Ayala Land vs Argosino
It is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the judicial
process - such as the filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation,
and frivolous appeals - for the sole purpose of frustrating and
delaying the execution of a judgment.
What is patent from the acts of respondent - as herein narrated and
evident from the records - is that he has made a mockery of judicial
processes, disobeyed judicial orders, and ultimately caused unjust
delays in the administration of justice. These acts are in direct
contravention of Rules 10.3 and 12.04 of the CPR.
 Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Just
because it is available to you doesn’t mean that you should
do it. If in the process you will violate the other Canons of
the Code, the question now is whether you can or cannot
but whether you should or should not.
o The question of you should, ibabangga mo yan sa
Legal Ethics.
 If appeal is available but slim chance of getting a reverse
decision – look at the motive and conscience
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS
AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by
the record or have no materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.
The word respect is quite ambiguous to many people. What does it
really mean to show respect to a court?
 Does it matter what you believe in when it comes to
respect? For instance, you think SC has abuse its discretion
and to your mind, you thought that “sama naman ng
justices na ‘to?”
o When you talk of respect, you are talking here of
behavior.
 What if you disagree with the decision but you don’t hate
the court, but the manner that you disagreed with them
seems like you really hate them? It doesn’t matter what you
think or feel towards the court. What matters is how you
behave towards it.
 Behavior is everything in Canon 11. Never allow your
words to ripen into action.
Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty
When lawyers speak their minds, they must ever be mindful of their
sworn oath to observe ethical standards of their profession, and in
particular, avoid foul and abusive language to condemn the Supreme
Court, or any court for that matter, for a decision it has rendered,
especially during the pendency of a motion for such decision’s
reconsideration. The accusation of plagiarism against a member of
this Court is not the real issue here but rather this plagiarism issue has
been used to deflect everyone’s attention from the actual concern of
this Court to determine by respondents’ explanations whether or not
respondent members of the Bar have crossed the line of decency and
acceptable professional conduct and speech and violated the Rules of
Court through improper intervention or interference as third parties to
a pending case.
The threat to judicial independence and the orderly administration of
justice that immoderate, reckless and unfair attacks on judicial
decisions and institutions pose.
SpEthics (JGH) | 23
  Is it material WON what they are saying is true or not? NO.
It doesn’t matter if the manner by which you presented
your arguments in your pleading connote disrespect toward
the court, then you can be held liable.
o Immaterial yung veracity ng claim, whether it has
basis or not, whether your intention is pure or not
Is it material that a lawyer is not lawyering in a case for him or her to
be in violation of Canon 11 because of his bad behavior?
No, even if he or she is not lawyering for a case [for instance, just a
bystander, sister of the accused]
Re: Show Cause Order in the Decision dated May 11, 2018
Sereno’s defense: She is not lawyering for any client; she is the
respondent in the case. So, she did not violate the code.
RULING: Lawyers may be disciplined for acts committed even in
their private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on the
legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public.
There can be no distinction as to whether the transgression is
committed in lawyers' private lives or in their professional capacity,
for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time
and a mere citizen at another
The fact that respondent was not the judge nor the counsel but a
litigant in the subject case does not strip her off of her membership in
the Bar, as well as her being a Member and the head of the highest
court of the land at that time. Her being a litigant does not mean that
she was free to conduct herself in less honorable manner than that
expected of a lawyer or a judge.
It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful
attitude. As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity
and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity, according to the
oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of
our democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be
resting on a very shaky foundation.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND
CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND
EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately
prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will
adduce and the order of its proferrence. He should also be ready with the
original documents for comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same
cause.
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of
a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break
or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination.
Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent
himself or to impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor
needlessly inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:
(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an
instrument, and the like; or
(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends
of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the
case to another counsel.
Alcantara vs De Vera
There is nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer who files numerous
cases in different fora, as long as he does so in good faith, in
accordance with the Rules, and without any ill-motive or purpose
other than to achieve justice and fairness. The barrage of cases filed
by the respondent against his former client and others close to her
was meant to overwhelm said client and to show her that the
respondent does not fold easily after he was meted a penalty of one
year suspension from the practice of law.
His act of filing a barrage of cases appears to be an act of revenge and
hate driven by anger and frustration against his former client who
filed the disciplinary complaint against him for infidelity in the
custody of a client’s funds.
 Is it wrong to file several cases against people? No. But if it
is solely to harass or delay, then you can be held liable.
o Who determines the motive? The court based on
your cause of actions
 If we are not careful, the SC will assess the basis for your
filing and the only basis of the court to say that you are
doing it for the wrong reason would be your cause of action
+ circumstances surrounding the filing
Bergonia vs Merrera
RULING: A request for extension becomes necessary when an
advocate needs more time to study the client’s position. Generally,
such request is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
Lawyers who, for one reason or another, decide to dispense with the
filing of the required pleading, should promptly manifest this intent to
the court. It is necessary for them to do so in order to prevent delay in
the disposition of the case. Those who file motions for extension in
bad faith misuse the legal process, obstruct justice,20 and thus
become liable to disciplinary action.
A lawyer who requests an extension must do so in good faith and
with a genuine intent to file the required pleading within the extended
period. In granting the request, the court acts on the presumption that
the applicant has a justifiable reason for failing to comply with the
period allowed.
 Filing of 2 motions for extension
o Was it wrong for him to do so? What was his
fault that made him liable under Canon 12?
Despite filing of motion for extension, he did not
intend to file brief for his client
 There’s nothing wrong with filing a notice of appeal even if
you’re not yet sure if you have basis to appeal or not. That
is SOP. BUT when you start studying the case and you find
yourself thinking that the appeal has no merit, so you need
time to study it more, so you file a motion for extension to
study it again. But during that period, you thought that the
SpEthics (JGH) | 24
 appeal really has no merit. What will you do? Don’t let the
period lapse without filing anything.
o Wag mo dedmahin ang court because that it is a
sign of disrespect.
March 10, 2021
Practical ethics
What is the importance of the CPR vis-à-vis the morals of a person? The Code
creates and manages expectations of lawyers such that regardless of a lawyer’s
moral background or lack of it, a lawyer is expected to behave or act in a
certain way in accordance with the Code. It cuts across all forms of morality.
 Regardless of morality or lack of it, once a lawyer, he/she is
expected to act in a way that conforms with CPR
 It is an expectation given to all lawyers such that a God-fearing
man, atheist, agnostic, it doesn’t matter.
Common Myths about the Legal Profession
1. The practice of law is PRIMARILY a business.
 Do not be ashamed if you want to earn a lot of money
as a lawyer but be reminded that it is not your primary
goal.
 Practice of law can be a sense of business BUT IT IS
NOT PRIMARILY A BUSINESS but a profession. It is
not a money-making venture and law advocacy is not a
capital that necessary yields profit.
 Gaining of livelihood is just a secondary consideration.
 Duty to public service = primary consideration [being a
public servant]
2. The practice of law is a RIGHT.
 Not just because you’re a lawyer today doesn’t mean
you are a lawyer forever. There is such a thing as
disbarment.
o If you don’t uphold the dignity of the legal
profession. If you commit an act that erodes
your reputation or integrity as a lawyer.
 The practice of law is not a right rather a privilege that
can be taken away from you if you don’t take good care
of it.
 “The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does
not have the right to enjoy the practice of the legal
profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is
a privilege that can be revoked, subject to the mandate
of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and the
dictates of legal ethics.” (Ui vs Bonifacio
Administrative)
 See Canon 7 – if you fail to comply with Canon 7,
you’ll lose the privilege to practice law
o The SC is interested not only in your
behavior in public but also in your private
life. See R7.03
o The Court looks at the totality of the lawyer
not just how you behave in public but also
how you behave in private and there’s a
word for that: integrity [comes from integer
– a whole number as opposed to fraction]
o When you say that a person has integrity, it
means that the life of that person is whole; it
is not compartmentalized, not fragmented.
Who he is in public is who he is in private.
And that is the interest of the SC to make
sure that a lawyer has integrity.
3. The client is ALWAYS RIGHT.
 Because the client is not a customer and only customers
are always right. Unfortunately, many lawyers treat
their client as customer.
 Do not let the client take the driver’s seat especially in
procedural law because we have been trained of it.
o As a lawyer, we cannot allow our clients to
violate the law. It is incumbent upon us, as
counsel, to impress upon our client the
importance of following the law.
4. The lawyer is ALWAYS RIGHT.
Legal ethics
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS
CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS
TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING
THE COURT
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality
to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch
or agency of the government in the normal course of judicial proceedings.
Nestle Philippines vs Sanchez
RULING: Grievances, if any, must be ventilated through the proper
channels, i.e., through appropriate petitions, motions or other
pleadings in keeping with the respect due to the Courts as impartial
administrators of justice entitled to "proceed to the disposition of its
business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference
obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the
administration of justice."
The right of petition is conceded to be an inherent right of the citizen
under all free governments. However, such right, natural and inherent
though it may be, has never been invoked to shatter the standards of
propriety entertained for the conduct of courts.
The individuals herein cited who are non-lawyers are not
knowledgeable in her intricacies of substantive and adjective laws.
BUT the duty and responsibility of advising them, therefore, rest
primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their counsel of record.
Atty. Jose C. Espinas, when his attention was called by this Court,
did his best to demonstrate to the pickets the untenability of their acts
and posture. It is the lawyer’s duty as officers of the court to properly
apprise their clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude toward
courts of justice, and to labor leaders of the importance of a
continuing educational program for their members.
 Isn’t picketing an exercise of a right as enshrined in the
Constitution—freedom of expression? If it is an exercise of
a right, how come the SC is preventing them from
picketing? SC is limiting the exercise of this right because
of the perception to the SC.
o You can exercise your right but once the SC’s
right to decide is already curtailed by the exercise
of the right, then there must be a limit to that
right [balancing of right]
o Assuming that the right of the SC can decide
unaffected by the picketing, they can still stop the
demonstration because it is no longer the question
of whether they will be influenced or not but a
question of public perception.
SpEthics (JGH) | 25
  Independence of judiciary
 Question of public perception: Decision of SC MAY BE
affected
 T/F: Those in the picket line violated Canon 13? Union
members, no because they are not the lawyers. But if
you’re the lawyer of these union members even if you’re
not the one who committed the act of demonstrating outside
and you are there and you did not do anything about it, you
can be held liable under Canon 13.
Lantoria vs Bunyi
Was there any evidence or proof to show that the judge was actually
influenced or relying on the pleadings drafted by the lawyer in this
case? None. It is immaterial whether the judge was influenced or not.
What is important is public perception.
 The fact that he drafted the pleadings and he bragged about
the one that he made gave the impression that he is
“malakas” to the judge; he is exerting some kind of
influence to the judge and that is an act unbecoming of a
lawyer as you only should rely on the merits of your case.
Assuming that you are friends with the judge, you invited the judge in
a party. You have a pending case in the sala of the judge. The judge
did not go to the party but the mere fact that invitation was sent to the
judge, would you be held liable?
 Note that at the end of the day, it is always PUBLIC
PERCEPTION.
 It doesn’t matter whether you were able to influence the
judge or not BUT what is important is the fact that you
commit an act which gives that impression, that you have
some kind of influence over the court [kaibigan ko yang si
judge, ako na bahala kasi kainuman ko yan], you can be
held liable as you are trying to give impression to the public
that you have influence over this particular judge or court.
o People will think that when the judge issued his
decision, there is some sort of influence on your
part.
Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the
Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases Against Former President
Joseph E. Estrada
ISSUE: WON the live media coverage should be granted?
RULING: No. Even while it may be difficult to quantify the
influence, or pressure that media can bring to bear on witnesses and
judges directly and through the shaping of public opinion, it is a fact,
nonetheless, that, indeed, it does so in so many ways and in varying
degrees. The conscious or unconscious effect that such a coverage
may have on the testimony of witnesses and the decision of judges
cannot be evaluated but, it can likewise be said, it is not at all
unlikely for a vote of guilt or innocence to yield to it. It might be
farcical to build around them an impregnable armor against the
influence of the most powerful media of public opinion.
Live television and radio coverage could have mischievous
potentialities for intruding upon the detached atmosphere that should
always surround the judicial process.
 What is the evil that they are trying to prevent in this case?
PUBLIC PERCEPTION
 Was there total prohibition? Audio recording within the
limits set by the court.
!!! Remember that if you’re going to win a case, it is not because of
good media coverage or because of public perception; you’re going
to win the case because you did your job.
Bildner v. Singson
RULING: Atty. Singson attempted to influence Judge Reyes decide
a case in favor of Atty. Singson’s client. Atty. Singson admitted
having made phone calls to Judge Reyes, either in his residence or
office in Baguio City during the period material. Matters touching on
case status could and should be done through the court staff, and
resetting is usually accomplished thru proper written motion or in
open court. The incriminating calls were sometimes made late in the
evening and sometimes in the most unusual hours
 Are there any evidence that the judge actually received and
accepted the bribe of the lawyer in this case? None. So, it
doesn’t matter whether the judge was influenced or not.
What matters is that there is an attempt to influence the
court.
o Mere attempt to show that he can influence the
court by ways other than legal ways or ways that
are not allowed by the Code, he would already be
in violation of the Code.
!!! Every act that you do can create a wrong perception. It doesn’t
matter whether you are successful in influencing the court or not. For
as long as you attempt to influence the court, it is already a violation.
CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO
THE NEEDY.
Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on
account of the latter's race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own
opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient
cause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a request
from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition
of free legal aid.
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent
client unless:
(a) he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently;
(b) he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective
client or between a present client and the prospective client.
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.
When is somebody considered as indigent client? A person who has
no visible means of income, or whose income is insufficient for the
subsistence of his family
 Can anybody claimed to be indigent? Should the court
appoint a lawyer right away? No, court must investigate or
SpEthics (JGH) | 26
 background check if the person is really indigent because if
a person is capable of hiring his own counsel, why should
the court assign a counsel for him.
Canon 14 mandates a lawyer to provide service to a needy client.
 If you refuse to serve a client but you are able to prove that
he is not indigent or needy, you can be absolved from any
liability under Canon 14.
o It is not correct to say that you cannot refuse
somebody who is asking for your help. You can
refuse but you cannot refuse if that person is
needy. In that situation, you have to give some
kind of legal services to that person as part of
your duty as an officer of the court.
Canon 15: A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH
HIS CLIENTS.
Rule 15.01 - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain
as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with
another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the
prospective client.
Rule 15.02 - A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication
in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Rule 15.04 - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as
mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
Rule 15.05 - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and honest
opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case, neither
overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06 - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any
public official, tribunal or legislative body.
Rule 15.07 - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws
and the principles of fairness.
Rule 15.08 - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation
concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he
is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
When can a lawyer represent conflicting interest?
Requirements
1. When there is a written consent of all concerned AND
2. After a full disclosure of the facts
T/F: A lawyer cannot represent conflicting interest. FALSE provided
the requirements are present.
Dee vs CA
Alleged conflicting interest:
1. Professional services to defendant-appellant seeking advice
re indebtedness of Dewey Dee to Caesar’s Palace
2. Collection agent and consultant of Caesar's Palace
RULING: GR: An attorney is prohibited from representing parties
with contending positions.
 However, at a certain stage of the controversy before it
reaches the court, a lawyer may represent conflicting
interests with the consent of the parties.
A common representation may work to the advantage of said parties
since a mutual lawyer, with honest motivations and impartially
cognizant of the parties' disparate positions, may well be better
situated to work out an acceptable settlement of their differences,
being free of partisan inclinations and acting with the cooperation and
confidence of said parties.
Even the lawyer was during the period in question an agent of
Caesar's Palace, petitioner was not unaware thereof, hence he actually
consented to and cannot now decry the dual representation that he
postulates.
 Was there written consent? None.
 Even if there is no written consent and even if there really
is conflicting interest, the Court noted that he may represent
conflicting interest. WHY?
o No case was filed yet in the court. It is still under
negotiation.
o Before the start of any judicial proceeding, there
is no CI if the lawyer is representing both parties.
In fact, it might even be beneficial for the
resolution of the case. See underlined.
 Technically, there is no conflicting
interest because he only has 1 interest:
settlement of the conflict.
Gonzales vs. Cabucana
 Is it material that the conflict of interest resulted in the
failure of the lawyer to lawyer effectively for his client?
No. What is important is if the CI would invite suspicion of
double dealing on the part of the lawyer, then it would
already be tantamount to a conflict of interest.
 It did not matter that there are 2 different cases involved:
civil and criminal case. The fact that he was the counsel of
1 party in one case but counsel of the other party in another
case already invited the suspicion of double dealing.
o To prevent that, the most ethical thing to do is
simply to say no to prevent suspicion re double
dealing
Diongzon vs Mirano
Conflict of interest exists where a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two opposing parties, like when the lawyer performs an
act that will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represented him, or when the lawyer uses any knowledge he
previously acquired from his first client against the latter. The
prohibition against conflict of interest is founded on principles of
public policy and good taste, inasmuch as the lawyer-client
relationship is based on trust and confidence. A lawyer has a duty to
preserve his client's confidence in him, even if their relationship ends.
The purpose is to assure freedom of communication between the
lawyer and the client in order to enable the former to properly
represent and serve the latter's interests. To use against the latter any
information the former gains during the relationship is deplorable and
unethical.
SpEthics (JGH) | 27
When he appeared in court for the benefit of the Gonzaleses to try the
case against the complainant, the respondent unquestionably incurred
a conflict of interest. Having become privy to the terms of the sale
subject of the civil case, the conflict of interest became unmitigated
because the complainant had not expressly consented in writing to his
appearing in behalf of the Gonzaleses. It would have been more
prudent for him to have excused himself from representing either
party in the civil case.
Castro vs Barin
There exists a conflict of interest. Atty. Barin admits that he is the
counsel of Ms. Calamiong in the Estafa case filed by herein
complainant. His act of notarizing the affidavit of desistance of
complainant, which was later submitted to the investigating
prosecutor, is a clear violation of the above-cited Rule. Atty. Barin
cannot represent both parties in the same case, as the counsel for the
accused and the complainant. The affidavit of complainant should
have been subscribed and sworn to before the investigating
prosecutor to give the latter an opportunity to determine the veracity
of its contents and voluntariness of its execution.
 There was a contention that there was forgery – forgery
was not proven. But even assuming that it was forged, it
was wrong for him to notarize the affidavit of desistance.
 Can he not use as a defense the decision in the case of Dee
vs CA? There was already a complaint filed + the one who
should notarize is the prosecutor and not the other counsel.
March 17, 2021
Practical ethics
Why the need for morality?
Why is there a need for lawyers to be moral despite the fact that we already
have a CPR? Isn’t our ethics enough to help us make good decision as
lawyers?
1. A code is not exhaustive.
 Sometimes, we will find ourselves in situation whereby
our decision will not come easy because our particular
situation does not actually fall squarely into any of the
provisions of the CPR. We call them grey areas. These
grey areas are very difficult to navigate. So, in those
situations, our morality or lack of it steps in.
o For instance, tampering a witness.
 Challenge: We must have a well-formed conscience to
be able to make right decisions in the absence of
directly applicable provisions of the Code.
2. A code cannot dictate the heart.
 While it is written [and it’s there, a directive and
command for us], it is not etched in our hearts. So, the
moment we find an opportunity to go around it, we will.
 Morality is etched in our hearts. It’s there. It is part of
us. We were born with a conscience. So, when we are
placed in a situation whereby it is very difficult to
determine whether something should be done or not,
our conscience kicks in and it helps us make the right
decision.
o Presumption: You have a well-formed
conscience to make a decision.
3. A code cannot love you back.
 Analogy: Effect of discipling a child out of anger vs out
of love
o Out of anger: if he’s stronger than them
already, chances are he will not follow his
parents
o Out of love: the child will grow up
disciplined and even if he reaches the age of
majority, he will still do what’s right even if
the parents are not around.
 The code is not capable of loving us. It is just there to
give us commands. You either obey it or not. If you
don’t, you get punished for it. That’s a hard and cold
CPR. On the other hand, morality loves you back. What
will stop you from committing wrong is your morality.
It’s not the fear of getting punished that will stop you
but it is the desire to please the one who loves you.
 Ethical lawyers would be good lawyers. But moral
lawyers will be great
“With great power comes great responsibility.” You have been given a
wonderful gift—a gift of this legal profession. It is a profession that is filled
with authority and power. Lest we forget, it is a gift, a privilege that comes
great responsibility. Enjoy the power and the blessing of the profession but
never for a moment think that you are not responsible. Take responsibility and
do what’s right. Be ethical and if possible, be moral as well.
March 24, 2021
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS
AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
POSSESSION.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart
from his own and those of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may
apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also
have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured
for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the
client's interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent
advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the
interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is
handling for the client.
Champertous Contracts v. Contingent Fee
Champertous Contracts Contingent Fee
Lawyer agrees to shoulder the Fees will be paid only upon
expenses and in return, gets a success of the case
percentage in the winning
Not allowed as against public Allowed
policy because if case was
decided against, lawyer cannot
be reimbursed + lawyer might
do all things, even illegal, just
to win the case + rich lawyer
might have advantage as they
might have more client
Plumptre vs Rivera
SpEthics (JGH) | 28
As his client's advocate, a lawyer is duty-bound to protect his client's
interests and the degree of service expected of him in this capacity is
his "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost
learning and ability." The lawyer also has a fiduciary duty, with the
lawyer-client relationship imbued with utmost trust and confidence.
 Can he be held guilty of estafa? YES, misappropriate
money
 Other provisions of the Code may be violated. In this case,
Canon 1, Canon 7, Canon 18, R18.03 and R18.04.
Professional Services vs Rivera
Case where lawyer had rubber stamps with engravings RTC for his
client to believe that he indeed filed the case [he gets the filing fee]
RULING: The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly
fiduciary and ascribes to a lawyer a great degree of fidelity and good
faith." Thus, when they receive money from a client for a particular
purpose, they are bound to render an accounting of how the money
was spent for the said purpose; and, in case the money was not used
for the intended purpose, they must immediately return the money to
the client. Failure of a lawyer to return the money entrusted to him by
his/her client upon demand creates a presumption that he/she has
appropriated the same for his/her own use.
Atty. Rivera made the complainant believe that collection cases
would be filed to recover money from persons who had obligations to
pay complainant. However, after receipt of the funds intended as
filing fees, Atty. Rivera duped the complainant as he did not spend
the amount as intended and instead, appropriated the funds for his
own benefit. He resorted to false pretenses and misrepresentations to
deceive the complainant into parting with its money. Atty. Rivera
even had the audacity to use fake stamps of courts of justice and other
government offices to give his dishonest scheme an appearance of
truth and credibility. Atty. Rivera succeeded in deceiving his client
and besmirching the reputation of the courts.
 Violates Canon 1, R1.01, Canon 16, R16.01, and Canon 17
 Be very careful when it comes to money coming to your
possession as counsel. It calls for greater stewardship. If it
was given to you for a certain purpose, use it for that
If there is a problem from collection from a client, how do you collect
from the client? Filing a case for collection. You don’t collect by
misappropriating what is given to you.
Egger vs Duran
Respondent admittedly breached this duty when he failed to prepare,
much less file, the appropriate pleading to initiate complainant and
Reposo's case before the proper court. Respondent's additional
contention that his failure to file the petition was due to complainant
and Reposo's failure to remit the full acceptance fee of P150,000.00 is
not an excuse to abandon his client's cause. The act of agreeing to
handle complainant's case, coupled with his acceptance of the partial
payment of P100,000.00, already established an attorney-client
relationship that gave rise to his duty of fidelity to the client's cause
Failure to return the 100k
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary
and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith. The highly
fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty
to account for the money or property collected or received for or from
his client. Thus, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds
held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the
presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in
violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross
violation of general morality, as well as of professional ethics.
April 14, 2021
Practical ethics
3. Accountability
When you choose to do what’s right, sometimes you need to hear from other
people that what you did was right and that you are not alone in your decision.
There will come a time when you need to make tough decision for the sake of
your principle. And when you feel that you’re alone, it is easy for you to
change your mind and give in to temptations.
 That’s why it is important for us to have FAITH-BUILDING
CONNECTIONS  connections with other lawyers that would
build up our faith in our decision to do what’s right in the midst of
all temptations
o As sometimes, even if deep inside you want to do
what’s right, if you don’t have the support from other
lawyers in doing what’s right it is easy for you to give
in
o This faith-building connection is the 3rd key and it is
accountability.
Accountability is the act of being responsible for one’s action.
 When we say that we want to be accountable for our actions, we
want to be accountable for our actions TO OTHER PEOPLE. We
make ourselves accountable to other lawyers to make sure that we
remain in the right path.
 A voluntary submission to another good lawyer of your desire to
do what’s good and ask that lawyer to keep you in the right path is
accountability.
!!! Find other lawyers whom you can be accountable to.
To whom do we make ourselves accountable to?
We have to make ourselves accountable to other GOOD LAWYERS.
 What kind of lawyers?
1. Of like-minded vision.
o A people without a vision will perish. –
Book of Proverbs.
o It is important that you have a vision and
you have the same objective.
2. Of same-hearted mission.
o A vision without action is hallucination. You
can have a very good vision but if you don’t
have the missionary heart to put it into
action, nothing will come out of it.
o You need to be linked up with other lawyers
with the same mission as you.
!!! Do not compromise your value just to make it seem like you’re finishing
first. Really good ones, they don’t compromise. They do lawyering the right
way. When it matters most, they received the most advantage because they
don’t compromise.
SpEthics (JGH) | 29
  That’s what faith-building connection does. When you see other
people try to live out their values or ethics as best as they can, they
don’t compromise, you are also inspired.
o If you don’t have those connections, it will be very
difficult to be inspired to do what’s right.
Analogy: Broom stick – if you get one stick, it is easy to break it but if you
bind the sticks together, you would realize that it is very difficult to break.
 A good lawyer who tries to live out his profession by himself, it is
so easy to break him. But if you bind yourself with other good
lawyers and you make yourself accountable to them, you’ll find it
a lot more productive and you become stronger in resisting
temptation.
DISCUSSION
 Advantage of being accountable to one another
 Criteria on the kinds of lawyer that you must be
accountable to:
o Lawyers which are of like-minded vision
o Same hearted mission
It is not enough that you are accountable to just any lawyer. Because
if that lawyer is not on the right track, then you will also fall into the
same path.
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS
CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or
should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such
service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel
a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information
Hernandez vs. Atty. Padilla
List all the acts of Atty Padilla
 Why is it necessary to enumerate all the acts of Atty Padilla
which led to the conclusion or decision of the court to
discipline him? A simple mistake would not be sufficient to
hold a lawyer liable. There must really be NEGLIGENCE.
o The SC is not so unreasonable as to discipline
right away a lawyer who made a simple mistake.
o We can make mistakes. But if u take the totality
of all the acts of the counsel, and you are led to
the conclusion, after taking everything into
consideration, that he is really negligence, that is
the time for the court to discipline you. BUT that
is not a license for you to make mistakes because
your simple mistake and lack of diligence taken
together can still lead to violation of Canon 18.
 Assuming that Atty Padilla filed the wrong pleading but
when he was given notice of the fact that he filed the wrong
pleading, if he right away corrected it, would he be liable
under Canon 18? No. You have to be incompetent + lack of
diligence. It has to be both.
o Mere incompetence can be saved by diligence.
Vda de Saldivar v. Atty. Cabanes
Failure to appear the scheduled preliminary conference + no
justification of his absence [caused the client the case]
RULING: Respondent could have exercised ordinary diligence by
inquiring from the court as to whether the said hearing would push
through, especially so since it was only tentatively set and
considering further that he was yet to confer with the opposing
counsel. The fact that respondent had an important commitment
during that day hardly exculpates him from his omission since the
prudent course of action would have been for him to send a substitute
counsel to appear on his behalf. In fact, he should have been more
circumspect to ensure that the aforesaid hearing would not have been
left unattended in view of its adverse consequences, i.e., that the
defendant’s failure to appear at the preliminary conference already
entitles the plaintiff to a judgment. Indeed, second-guessing the
conduct of the proceedings, much less without any contingent
measure, exhibits respondent’s inexcusable lack of care and diligence
in managing his client’s cause.
 When will you characterize the act of a lawyer as negligent
for purposes of being held liable under Canon 18? Failure
to exercise the diligence required of a lawyer
 Assuming that he did everything he can, e.g. find someone
to replace him to attend, postponement, but he could not
really make it for a very valid reason, would he be
considered negligent? What if what he did is to the
judgment of the court not enough? Because it is seldom that
the counsel will not do anything? When can we say that the
counsel has done enough for you not to be considered
negligent?
o If he has done everything in the ordinary course
of thing, he can be absolved from the charges.
Remember what should you do in the ordinary
course of thing because the SC will not demand
extraordinary from you but you are expected to
give it your best.
o Rule of thumb: In the ordinary course of thing,
have I done things possible? If not, liable.
Gimena v. Sabio
An unsigned pleading creates no legal effect, such that the party may
be deemed not to have filed a pleading at all. Yet, respondent, a long
standing legal practitioner, did not sign a position paper that he filed
in a labor suit allegedly due to oversight. What more, he claimed that
his client's failure to pay legal expenses and attorney's fees
contributed to such oversight. These actuations of respondent demean
the legal profession. Lawyering is not primarily concerned with
money-making; rather, public service and administration of justice
are the tenets of the profession.
SpEthics (JGH) | 30
Respondent's inattention is further highlighted by his disobedience to
the labor arbiter's directive that he sign the position paper. His
conduct evinces a willful disregard to his duty as officer of the court.
 When once negligence is tantamount to a wilful disregard
of one’s duty resulting in disadvantage to client, that
particular act of negligence becomes malicious in that
regard.
 You can always say that you are negligent but you didn’t
intend to be so. But if you’re negligence is so gross, that
would be tantamount to malicious act or wilful disregard of
your duty as counsel.
o What led the SC to say that there is a wilful
disregard of duty? Disobedience to the LA’s
directive to sign the paper
Suarez v. Maravilla-Ona
After collecting the full amount of her professional and legal fees,
Atty. Maravilla-Ona did not take a single step to process the
registration of land title in Bienvenida's name. Worse, when asked to
return the money she received from Bienvenida, Atty. Maravilla-Ona
issued a worthless check which consequently bounced when
presented for payment.
RULING: Atty. Maravilla-Ona's agreement to render her legal
services to Bienvenida, sealed by her receipt of her legal fees, is an
assurance and representation that she would be diligent and
competent in fulfilling her responsibilities as Bienvenida's lawyer.
However, Atty. Maravilla-Ona acted to the contrary. Thus, the IBP
correctly found that she violated Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 thereof
Atty. Maravilla-Ona's negligence, her failure to return her client's
money, and her act of issuing a worthless check constitute
dishonesty, abuse of trust and confidence, and betrayal of her client's
interests.
 In case of issuance of worthless check, is that a violation of
Canon 18? No, Canon 16. Canon 18 refers to competence
and diligence. The issuance of a worthless check already
involves deceitful conduct. That doesn’t make sense for a
person who committed a deceitful conduct to be charged in
violation of Canon 18.
Dongga-as v. Cruz-Angeles, et al
Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler failed to file the appropriate pleading
to initiate the case before the proper court; and worse, could not even
show a finished draft of such pleading.
 When it involves money, SC will be stricter in recognition
of the fact that the clients put in money to their hard-earned
money to the case and that the lawyer cannot just take that
for granted
 The court zoomed in to the fact that they did not file the
case not for using the money for the filing of the case.
Hipolito vs Atienza
Respondent lawyer failed to serve complainants with industry and
diligence. He neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. Respondent
lawyer claimed that he decided to withdraw from the aforesaid
ejectment case, because, in his view, the case was unmeritorious.
However, he admitted that he failed to formally withdraw as counsel
for complainants allegedly due to his hectic schedule during the 2010
elections. He also admitted that he failed to file the aforesaid position
paper with the MCTC. After the MCTC rendered a decision adverse
to complainants, respondent lawyer filed a notice of appeal, however,
he failed to file the memorandum of appeal before the RTC for
complainants. Consequently, the RTC dismissed complainants'
appeal. Respondent lawyer clearly fell short of the circumspection
and diligence required of those privileged to practice law. He
attributed his shortcomings as a lawyer to his being a politician. The
Court finds such reason unacceptable, if not a display of insolence
and arrogance.
Heirs of Sixto L. Tan, Sr. vs. Atty. Beltran
Failed to timely file the Petition for Review before the SOJ. As a
result, his clients lost the criminal case.
Defense: He delegated the filing to complainants
RULING: The excuse forwarded by respondent will not exculpate
him from administrative liability. Respondent cannot disclaim
negligence, since he was the lawyer tasked to pursue the legal
remedies available to his clients.
Lawyers are expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and
legal procedure. A client who deals with counsel has the right to
expect not just a good amount of professional learning and
competence, but also a wholehearted fealty to the client's cause. Thus,
passing the blame to persons not trained in remedial law is not just
wrong; it is reflective of the want of care on the part of lawyers
handling the legal matters entrusted to them by their clients
April 28, 2021
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH
ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting
or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the
course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal,
shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he
shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules
of Court.
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in
handling the case.
 Being zealous of the case because you believe in the case
o Our code gives us certain parameters in
exercising our zeal to our case.
Peña vs. Aparicio
Letter was sent by Atty. Aparicio:
BUT if these are not paid on August 10, 2005, we will be
constrained to file and claim bigger amounts including
moral damages to the tune of millions under established
SpEthics (JGH) | 31
 precedence of cases and laws. In addition to other multiple
charges like:
1. Tax evasion by the millions of pesos of income
not reported to the government.
2. Criminal Charges for Tax Evasion
3. Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents
4. Cancellation of business license to operate due to
violations of laws.
These are reserved for future actions in case of failure to
pay the above amounts as settlements in the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC
RULING: Respondent did exactly what Canon 19 and its Rule
proscribe. Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should
the latter fail to pay the amounts they propose as settlement, he would
file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, as well as
multiple charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and
cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of laws.
The threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they
also amount to blackmail.
Blackmail is "the extortion of money from a person by threats of
accusation or 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 calculated to
operate to his prejudice." In common parlance and in general
acceptation, it is equivalent to and synonymous with extortion, the
exaction of money either for the performance of a duty, the
prevention of an injury, or the exercise of an influence. Not
infrequently, it is extorted by threats, or by operating on the fears or
the credulity, or by promises to conceal or offers to expose the
weaknesses, the follies, or the crime of the victim.
Penalty: Reprimand with a stern warning
 Agree with the penalty?
 Act being penalized: Not the demand but the threat.
o It is perfectly legal to demand but it is unethical if
you accompany the demand with a threat.
 What if the threat of the case has good basis? Still
unethical? See R19.01 – present unfounded criminal
charges
o What is the evil that they are trying to prevent?
Threatening. So it is not the filing of a criminal
case whether it is unfounded or not but the threat
to do something unless the other counsel would
act in his favor.
o When the counsel resorts to these kinds of tactic
and not relying merely on the merits of the case,
it is unethical.
o To be safe, might as well use Canon 19 because
you must represent WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF
LAW.
 If you threaten, that is a strategy that
goes beyond the bounds of law. The
mere act of trying to make the other
lawyer do something is already
tantamount to extortion or blackmail.
Trinidad, et al. v. Villarin
In his demand letter, he brazenly typified one of the complainants,
Florentina Lander, as an illegal occupant. However, this description
is the exact opposite of the truth, since the final and executory
HLURB Decision had already recognized her as a subdivision lot
buyer who had a right to complete her payments in order to occupy
her property. Respondent is very much aware of this ruling when he
filed an Omnibus Motion to set aside the HLURB Decision and the
appurtenant Writ of Execution.
Given that respondent knew that the aforementioned falsity totally
disregarded the HLURB Decision, he thus advances the interest of his
client through means that are not in keeping with fairness and
honesty. What he does is clearly proscribed by Rule 19.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires that a lawyer
shall employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives.
Lawyers must not present and offer in evidence any document that
they know is false.
 The lawyer acted in his right in sending the demand letter
specially since demand is condition precedent to filing of
ejectment case. But he brazenly typified one of the
complainants as illegal occupant
o So, in writing a demand, you must only state
facts.
o The what is okay, the how is questionable
 Just because it is your right as counsel to act in this manner
doesn’t mean that the way you acted or exercise of that
right is also correct.
o When you’re trying to exercise a particular right,
it is not enough that you know this is something
you can do; you also have to be mindful on how
you’ll do it. Because if you’re going to do it in a
way that violate the canon, even if you have the
right, you can be held liable.
 Just like writing a pleading, it is okay to impute negative
things on the judge but you must do it in a respectful
manner in the same way as writing demand letter, you have
the right but the manner you do it can be questions.
CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND
REASONABLE FEES.
Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining
his fees:
(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or required;
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
(d) The skill demanded;
(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the
proffered case;
(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the
IBP chapter to which he belongs;
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the
client from the service;
(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.
SpEthics (JGH) | 32
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with the consent of the client,  There are situations where you will be left unpaid by your
be entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the work performed and client BUT your remedy is NEVER MISAPPROPRIATE
responsibility assumed. the money of your client.
Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of
o There is a way for you to collect and that is go to
the client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or the court. Why is it important to go to court to
forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his collect? The court intervenes in a private
professional employment from anyone other than the client. relationship between a client and attorney
because the court has the responsibility over
Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
lawyers:
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice or fraud. 1. To make sure that you are fair to your
client
 Lawyer is cautioned to charge fair and reasonable fees. 2. Your interest is protected as an officer
That would be the challenge because it is always the case, of the court
that the client is desperate and you can always take  You can be assured that the
advantage of that despair by charging high. That’s why court is in your side so never
Canon 20 is there. make the mistake of taking
the matters on your own
hand. Always remember that
the court is on your side as
Corpus v. CA you’re an officer of the court
The payment of attorney's fees to respondent David may also be [so long as you are on the
justified by virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do and right side]
you give which is based on the principle that "no one shall unjustly  If the court will not do this,
enrich himself at the expense of another." innominate contracts wala na gustong mag-
have been elevated to a codal provision in the New Civil Code by abogado.
providing under Article 1307 that such contracts shall be regulated by  Going to court must be the last resort. Try to settle it with
the stipulations of the parties, by the general provisions or principles your client
of obligations and contracts, by the rules governing the most
analogous nominate contracts, and by the customs of the people.
Bach vs. Ongkiko Law Offices
 There was no written agreement regarding the attorney’s
fees. Can he collect? YES, implied agreement + unjust 2 concepts of attorney's fees
enrichment
o So, even if there is no express contract, a lawyer 1. Ordinary sense – the reasonable compensation paid to a
can still collect his attorney’s fees but he must lawyer by his client for the legal services rendered to the
show that there exist attorney-client relationship latter
[he rendered legal services and by the acts of the 2. Extraordinary concept – awarded by the court as indemnity
client, there is an implied agreement] for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing
 An attorney-client relationship almost party
automatically implies that attorney’s
Generally, the amount of attorney's fees due is that stipulated in the
fee must be paid unless the client can
retainer agreement which is conclusive as to the amount of the
show that by your/his acts, you never
lawyer's compensation. In the absence thereof, the amount of
intended to be paid [pro bono services]
attorney's fees is fixed on the basis of quantum meruit, i.e., the
 To avoid controversy, make sure that the agreement is reasonable worth of the attorney's services. Courts may ascertain also
express. It is written agreement. if the attorney's fees are found to be excessive, what is reasonable
 Do not be in despair if you failed to put your agreement under the circumstances. In no case, however, must a lawyer be
into writing, there are many ways you can get paid for as allowed to recover more than what is reasonable.
long as you can establish atty-client relationship and that
you rendered legal services. But to avoid this kind of Circumstances to be considered in determining the reasonableness of
controversy, put it into writing [especially with friends] a claim for attorney's fees

1. the amount and character of the service rendered;

2. labor, time, and trouble involved;
What is the remedy of a counsel if the client doesn’t want to pay? 3. the nature and importance of the litigation or business in
How do you make him pay you? File a case for collection. which the services were rendered;
4. the responsibility imposed;
Mortera vs. Pagatpatan
5. the amount of money or the value of the property affected
Lawyer accepted a money as partial payment of the judgment sum, by the controversy or involved in the employment;
issuing a receipt for the amount but he deposited it in his personal 6. the skill and experience called for in the performance of the
bank account without the knowledge of complainants. He refuses to services;
surrender the money to complainants 7. the professional character and social standing of the
attorney;
RULING: A lawyer has no right to retain or appropriate unilaterally, 8. the results secured; and
as lawyer's lien, the money that is due to his client.

SpEthics (JGH) | 33
 9. whether the fee is absolute or contingent [if contingent,
larger fee]
Also see R20.1
Services rendered by the respondent as enumerated above and as
admitted by Atty. Mario Ongkiko during the ex parte hearing, consist
of annotating notice of lis pendens on the conjugal properties of
petitioner and his wife; filing the Petition for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage; preparing and filing various pleadings and documents
relevant to the case; obtaining a freeze order of petitioner's funds in
the UCPB; attending hearings in Civil Case No. 05-224, and sending
notices to petitioner updating the latter of the status of the case.
Nothing in Civil Case No. 95-224 so far appears complicated and no
extra ordinary skill was needed for lawyers of respondent Law Firm
to accomplish what they had done in the case before they withdrew
their appearance. We do not find herein a situation so intricate that
demands more than a careful scrutiny of the legal matters involved.
These are simply the normal duties of a lawyer that he is bound by
law to render to his clients with utmost fidelity for which his client
must not be burdened to pay an extra price. The case was still in its
initial stage.
 What made the client say that the amount is excessive? Did
they agree to that? Yes they agreed but the services
rendered by the lawyer are normal duties of a lawyer
 If the lawyer deserves this much absed on the service
rendered, then give it to him. But if not, court will reduce
that amount because the court wants to protect the lawyer
and the client [because in protecting the client, they can
protect the integrity of the profession]
o Even if there is a contract already agreed upon by
both the lawyer and the client, nothing stops the
court from stepping in if the amount is excessive
or disproportionate to the service rendered.
Pineda vs. De Jesus
Be very careful when you avail of the perks from your client which
may not be in the form of cash but services because the court in
quantifying or assessing your fees, they will take that into
consideration not just the financial aspect but those given to you in
kind.
Sps. Jacinto v. Bangot, Jr.
There was a MOA between the client and lawyer is an agreement
which grants the lawyer parcel of land in exchange of the lawyer’s
services. Spouses wanted to change that into cash instead of the
property and to revoke the MOA.
RULING: Attorney’s fee is not proportionate.
 Basis to determine whether the amount of attorney’s fees is
proportionate to the service rendered: quantum meruit and
R20.1
May 5, 2021
CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE
AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-
CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED.
Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his client
except;
(a) When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences
of the disclosure;
(b) When required by law;
(c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or
associates or by judicial action.
Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use
information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same
to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client with full
knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give
information from his files to an outside agency seeking such information for
auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or any similar
purpose.
Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to
partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.
Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to
prevent those whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using
confidences or secrets of the clients.
Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client's
affairs even with members of his family.
Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a
particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
Perez vs Dela Torre
Alleged conflicting interest:
1. He went to the municipal building of Calabanga where Ilo
and Avila were being detained and made representations
that he could secure their freedom if they sign the prepared
extrajudicial confessions
2. He represented the heirs of the victim in the criminal case
against Ilo and Avila
RULING: There is conflict of interests when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is
"whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight
for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.
In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by
him when he argues for the other client." This rule covers not only
cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but
also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.
In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the
facts connected with the client’s case, including the weak and strong
points of the case. The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree. It behooves lawyers not
only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the
appearance of impropriety and double-dealing for only then can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which
is of paramount importance in the administration of justice
SpEthics (JGH) | 34
Respondent assisted in the execution by the two accused of their
confessions whereby they admitted their participation in various
serious criminal offenses knowing fully well that he was retained
previously by the heirs of one of the victims. Respondent, who
presumably knows the intricacies of the law, should have exercised
his better judgment before conceding to accused’s choice of counsel.
It did not cross his mind to inhibit himself from acting as their
counsel and instead, he even assisted them in executing the
extrajudicial confession.
 Violation of R15. Why is it in R21? How is EJC relevant in
Canon 21? Canon 21 – ought to preserve communication
made by the client to the attorney
o When you violate Canon 15 and you use that info
that you got from your client against him, not
only you violate Canon 15 but you also violate
Canon 21
 Difference between Dee vs CA case, no suit was filed yet.
They were trying to settle the case [no conflict of interest].
In this case, when he got the EJC, no case was filed yet also
BUT the lawyer’s involvement in the case of Dee was for
settlement. Here, it is for convicting.
!!! Just because a case is not yet filed, you can represent both. It
depends on your role in the case.
 If mediator, then it is okay but if your role is that of an
advocate of one of the parties, then there is already conflict
of interest even if no case was filed.
Buehs vs. Bacatan
Labor case for illegal dismissal was filed against Mar Fishing
Company. Case was assigned to Atty. Bacatan who was then an
accredited voluntary arbitrator. Atty. Bacatan rendered a decision in
favor of the employees. Now, EEs filed a criminal complaint against
MFC. The complaint was indorsed by Atty. Bacatan.
Atty. Bacatan, in his Indorsement stated that he was acting as counsel
for complainants in said case, who were the same complainants in the
labor case pending before him.
RULING: Lawyers should not only keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also avoid the appearance of treachery and double-
dealing. Only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets
to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice.
A conflict of interests also exists when the acceptance of a new
relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof.
Respondent was appointed as Voluntary Arbitrator for the parties in
the illegal dismissal case. He took on the duty to act as a disinterested
person to hear the parties’ contentions and give judgment between
them. However, instead of exhibiting neutrality and impartiality
expected of an arbitrator, respondent indorsed a criminal complaint to
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Zamboanga City for possible
criminal prosecution against herein complainant, and signed the said
Indorsement as counsel for complainants in the illegal dismissal case
 Was it the act of representing them that made them say that
he was representing conflicting interest or was it the act of
indorsing? Indorsing
 There was a possibility that he will use the information
from the labor case in the criminal case filed against the
company. He is not supposed to divulge it by reason of his
office as voluntary arbitrator. And the fact that he used the
information as basis of filing the crim case already
constitutes violation of the Code. Not just Canon 15 but
also Canon 21
o Because information that he used was given to
him when he was still an arbitrator
o Evil that would probably come out where you
allow arbitrator to use info given to him in
another case? Parties will not be open for
arbitration.
 If you’re an arbitrator, for any arbitration matters, you r bound to
keep whatever information you received by reason of your
office, you are bound to keep it confidential otherwise, wala na
magsasalita sa mga proceedings na yan because it could be used
against them. That’s what he did. Worst, he signed the
indorsement as counsel for complainants.
 Re allegation that the word is misprint: He could have easily
crossed out the phrase or prepared another Indorsement deleting
said phrase.
 His filing of criminal case is a sign that he was acting in dual
capacity—both as arbitrator and counsel for one of the parties in
the arbitration proceedings.
 Be careful of whatever information you received by reason of
office in a particular proceeding, you cannot use that against a
party in your particular judicial or QJ proceedings.
CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY
FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rule 22.01 - A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following
case:
(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in
connection with the matter he is handling;
(b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these
canons and rules;
(c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best
interest of the client;
(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for
him to carry out the employment effectively;
(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to
comply with the retainer agreement;
(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
(g) Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a
retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client
is entitled, and shall cooperative with his successor in the orderly transfer of
the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the
matter.
Orcino v. Gaspar
Respondent failed to attend a hearing [wherein the court granted bail
to the opposing party] as according to him, he did not receive formal
notice of the hearing. So complainant went to his house and started
accusing him of jeopardizing the case + asked for the records of the
case so she could refer it to another lawyer.
SpEthics (JGH) | 35
Respondent gave the records and then he filed a Motion to Withdraw  There are grounds under Canon 22 where the lawyer may
as counsel. Complainant refused to sign her conformity to use as counsel. What ground did the SC use in this case?
respondent’s motion. Trial continued but respondent did not appear at Other similar cases – similar cases to the grounds stated
the hearings. under R22.01. Under what ground? (e) Failure to comply
with retainer agreement.
RULING: See R22.01 for grounds to withdraw a case. The instant o Implied responsibility of the client?
case does not fall under any of the grounds. Neither can this be
Responsibility on the part of the client and
considered analogous to the grounds. This case arose from a simple
counsel to maintain communication.
misunderstanding between complainant and Respondent. Her
o Sometimes the SC will not point to any of these
belligerence arose from her overzealousness, nothing more.
grounds, but it is up for you to read between the
Complainant’s words and actions may have hurt respondent’s
lines and to look at the grounds.
feelings considering the work he had put into the case. But her words
 A client may terminate the services of a counsel with or
were uttered in a burst of passion. And even at that moment,
without just cause? TRUE.
complainant did not expressly terminate respondent’s services. She
o If it is the client who terminates the service of the
made this clear when she refused to sign his "Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel." counsel even without cause, you need not look at
the grounds under Canon 22? YES.
Assuming, nevertheless, that respondent was justified in terminating  Did the client refuse? He did not. There was silence. No
his services, he, however, cannot just do so and leave complainant in refusal and no consent.
the cold unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume that his o Is consent necessary given the fact that the client
petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court cannot be found? By the very act of the client of
refusing to communicate to the counsel, it is
 What is the correct process if the counsel wants to tantamount to saying that I am terminating the
withdraw a case? agreement.
1. File motion to withdraw as counsel  THIS CAN ONLY HAPPEN IF
2. In that motion, client will sign it if he/she THERE IS EFFORT TO LOOK FOR
consented YOUR CLIENT
 In this case, what did he do after not getting the consent  To make sure that you are not held liable under Canon 22:
from his client? Abandoned the case Prove that you cannot find your client + failure of the client
 The client can terminate the services of a lawyer whether to comply with retainer agreement + efforts to find or
for cause or without cause. But a lawyer can terminate his communicate with the clients
services to a client only for a GOOD CAUSE [R22.01].
o Given the situation of the respondent in this case,
don’t u think that there is reasonable basis for the
May 12, 2021
court to allow him to be relieved as a counsel?
 There are causes that are unreasonable 4. Courage
and not justified. But you can be
creative if you really want to terminate T/F: Courage is the absence of fear.
your services because there will really
be clients like that  False. You’ll always feel fear. You’ll be afraid to lose a
case, to stand before a judge.

Courage is important because our profession is one of the most

Heidelberg Motors Corporation vs. Lim
Despite diligent efforts, they failed to establish any contact with
respondent Lim. Lim failed to communicate with them despite their
requests for return call at his last known contact numbers; and that he
failed to pay their fees. Counsel prays that it be relieved from
representing respondent Lim in this case
unsafe professions nowadays. We have to be courageous. But as they
say, courage is not the absence of fear but the willingness to do what
is right in the midst of fear.
 “Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear—not absence
of fear.” – Mark Twain

RULING: Under Canon 22 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, lawyers shall be allowed to withdraw their services How can we be courageous lawyers?
only for good cause and with the consent of their clients. However,
3 dares
the Court may relieve a lawyer from further representing a client
when the latter stops having any contact with the lawyer who is left 1. Dare to stand.
without the usual means which are indispensable in the successful, or  “I don’t want to rock the boat.”
at least, proper defense of the client's cause. o What is the premise there? You don’t
The Court had required counsel to secure the conformity of want to stand because it will rock the
respondent Lim, but counsel's attempts proved in vain. Such efforts boat. There are many boats that have to
exerted by counsel to find respondent Lim is sufficient to establish be rocked nowadays. Rather play it
that the client has abandoned his cause and left his counsel without safe, dare to stand.
adequate means to successfully protect his interest in this case.  “A ship is safe in harbor, but that’s not what ships
are for.” – William Shed, American Presbyterian

SpEthics (JGH) | 36
 o A lawyer can be safe not saying
anything, not for rocking the boat, not
challenging the status quo. But that is
not what lawyers are for. If you have to
make a stand, make a stand!!!
2. Dare to stand alone
 It is one thing to make a stand when you know
that everyone else is going to stand with you but
it takes more courage to dare to stand if you’re
going to stand yourself.
 When you worked, you will have a moment
where you need to make a stand and sometimes
you have to do it yourself.
 Goodness is never based on majority.
o Just because the majority says it is
right, doesn’t mean it is.
o “The opposite of courage in our society
is not cowardice, it is conformity.” –
Rollo May, author
o You have to have the courage to stand
even if you’re going to be minority
because righteousness or goodness is
not a matter of majority. It is not
dependent on the number of people
who says it is right
3. Dare to stand again.
 It is a totally different thing to dare to stand again
and again and again knowing that you can fail,
experience prosecution, or be ostracized for doing
what’s right, but you have to have the courage to
dare to stand again.
 “Courage doesn’t always roar. Sometimes
courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day
saying ‘I will try again tomorrow’. – Mary Anne
Radmacher-Hershey, author
 Difference between a thermostat and
thermometer
o Thermometer reflects the temperature
while a thermostat regulates the
temperature
o Be thermostats. Don’t be thermometers
just reflecting only the status quo of the
profession.
 It’s so easy to conform.
5. Excellence
When u talk about good lawyer, it is not enough you have the 4
PEAC, you must be an excellent lawyer. You must have both
character and competence.
 Nothing beats competence. If you’re a competent lawyer,
you will not run out of clients.
o !!! BE COMPETENT.
 Excellence is the quality of being exceptionally good.
How do we become excellent lawyers?
1. Seek your passion
 There are fields of law that make your heart skip
a beat more than other field.
o We have different emotional heartbeats
that we are drawn to. If you want to be
good at something, you have to love it
first If you love what you’re doing,
you’ll be good at it.
 “Nobody can be successful unless he loves his
work.” – David Sarnoff
o You have to love what you do because
if you don’t, it’ll slow you down.
 “Winning is about 10% physical, 40% mental and
50% passion.” – Jennifer Azzi
2. Study your Craft
 You have to keep studying your craft. You have
to do better what you already do well.
 “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those
who cannot read and write but those who cannot
learn, unlearn and relearn.” – Alvin Toffler
3. Stay focused.
 Be like a laser. Laser, because it is a focused
light, it is so powerful it can cut through steel.
 You have to learn the power of focusing. Focused
light is effective, in the same way, a focused
lawyer can also become excellent; he becomes
very effective
 “When you aim at nothing, you will surely hit it.”
– Anonymous
 If you are not focused in reviewing pleadings or
contract, you will miss out the details. That’s why
they say that what separates the excellence from
average are the details
o “The excellence is in the details.” –
Anonymous
o Unless u r focus, you will able to see
the details
o The smallest word can make a
difference in a case
4. Sacrifice beyond duty.
 When one goes the extra mile, they emerged
better than the rest. Go the extra mile. Sacrifice
beyond duty. That would separate you from an
average lawyer.
 You become excellent when you go beyond what
is required.
 The extra mile makes all the difference.
So, what do we have?
Purpose Ethics Accountability Courage Excellence
 YOU HAVE PEACE.
 Lawyering is not easy but it is worth it!!!!
SpEthics (JGH) | 37