LEGAL ETHICS

1. QUALIFICATIONS for new lawyers (Including those who reacquire

citizenship)
Who may practice law?
ANS. Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and
who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law. Only members
of the bar are allowed to practice.

What are the requirements for admission to the bar?

ANS. Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be: CAOR-
PNM- PTS

1. Citizen of the Philippines

2. At least 21 years of age
3. Of Good moral character
4. Resident of the Philippines
5. Produce before the SC satisfactory evidence of good moral character
6. No chargers, against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are
pending in any court in the Philippines.
7. Must have complied with the Academic requirements under the law:
A. Pre-law education:
a. Must have pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized
and recognized university or college in the course of study
prescribed therein for a bachelor’s degree in arts or sciences;
b. Such authorized and recognized university or college requires for
admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school
course; and
c. A filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor
of Laws degree or its equivalent in a foreign law school must
present proof of having completed a separate bachelor’s degree
course
B. Law education:
a. Successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the degree of
bachelor of laws or its equivalent degree, in a law school or
 university officially recognized by the Phil. Gov’t or by the proper
authority (LEB) in the foreign jurisdiction where degree was granted;
b. Must have satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law
school or university duly recognized by the government: CIVIL LAW,
COMMERCIAL LAW, REMEDIAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE INT’L LAW, POLITICAL LAW, LABOR AND SOCIAL
LEGISLATION, MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE, TAXATION, LEGAL
ETHICS AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAM; and
c. A filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be
admitted to the Bar examination only upon submission to the SC of
certifications showing:
I. Completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of laws or its
equivalent degree:
II. Recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and
III. Completion of all the fourth year subjects of the Bachelor of Laws
academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Phil. Gov’t.

8. Pass the Bar examinations

9. Take the lawyer’s oath
10. Sign the roll of attorneys

General rule: Only members of the bar are entitled to practice law.
Exceptions: The following are also allowed in exceptional circumstances:
(1) Law students;
(2) By an agent/friend;
(3) By the litigant himself.

B.1. CITIZENSHIP
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens save in cases prescribed by law [Sec. 14, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution].
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the
Philippines. [Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC]
Ratio:

Citizenship ensures allegiance to the Republic and its laws. The loss of Filipino
citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines except when citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization and
reacquired through RA 9225 [Petition to Resume Practice of Law of Dacanay,
B.M. 1678 (2007)].

A Filipino lawyer who has lost and reacquired his citizenship under RA 9225
(Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) is deemed not to have
lost his Philippine citizenship. However, he still needs to apply with the Supreme
Court for a license or permit to engage in such practice after compliance with
the following: UPCR
(1) Updating and payment of annual membership dues in the IBP;
(2) Payment of professional tax;
(3) Completion of 36 hours of MCLE;
(4) Retaking of the lawyer’s oath [Sec. 5(4), RA 9225]

A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-
acquires his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225, remains to be a member
of the Philippine Bar. However, the right to resume the practice of law is
not automatic. RA 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his
profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license or
permit to engage in such practice.
Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the practice of
law, the OBC requires the following:
1) Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
2) Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
3) Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4) Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration;
5) Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
6) Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual membership
dues;
7) Proof of payment of professional tax; and
8) Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office. [Petition to Reacquire
the Privilege to Practice Law of Muneses, B.M. 2112 (2012)].

B.2. RESIDENCE
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be... a resident of the
Philippines. [Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC]
Ratio: His/her duties to his client and to the court will require that he be readily
accessible and available.
B.3.
AGE Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be at least 21
years of age. [Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC]
Ratio: Maturity and discretion are required in the practice of law
B.4. GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be of good moral
character and must produce before the SC satisfactory evidence of good moral
character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. [Sec. 2, Rule 138, RoC]
Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every
member of the bar, it is not only a qualification precedent to the practice of
law [Narag v. Narag, A.C. 3405 (1998)].
Absence of a proven conduct or act which has been historically and traditionally
considered as a manifestation of moral turpitude. The act or conduct need not
amount to a crime; and even if it does constitute an offense, a conviction upon a
criminal charge is not necessary to demonstrate bad moral character although it
may show moral depravity [Agpalo (2004)].
Good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good
reputation, the estimate in which he is held by the public in the place where he is
known [In the Matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In
The 2002 Bar Examinations and For Disciplinary Action As Member of The
Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M. 1154 (2004)].
The Supreme Court may deny lawyer’s oathtaking based on a conviction for
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (hazing case). But after submission of
evidence and various certifications “he may now be regarded as complying with
the requirements of good moral character xxx he is not inherently of bad moral
fiber” [In re: Argosino, A.M. 712 (1997)].

Concealment of pending criminal cases constitutes lack of good moral character

(in petition to take the bar examinations) [In the Matter of the Disqualification of
Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling In The 2002 Bar Examinations and For
Disciplinary Action As Member of The Philippine Shari’a Bar, B.M. 1154 (2004)]

B.5. LEGAL EDUCATION

I. Pre-law

An applicant for admission to the bar examination shall present a certificate

issued by the proper government agency that, before commencing the study of
law, he or she had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and
recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of
a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a
bachelor's degree in arts or sciences.
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws
degree or its equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof of having
completed a separate bachelor's degree course. [Sec. 6, Rule 138, RoC; Re:
Letter of Atty. Mendoza, B.M. 1153 (2010)].

II. Law proper

All applicants for admission shall, before being admitted to the examination,
satisfactorily show that they have successfully completed all the prescribed
courses for the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree, in a law
school or university officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the
proper authority in the foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been granted.
No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall
be admitted to the bar examination unless he or she has satisfactorily completed
the following course in a law school or university duly recognized by the
government:
1) Civil Law
2) Commercial Law
3) Remedial Law
4) Criminal Law
5) Public International Law
6) Private International Law
7) Political Law
8) Labor and Social Legislation
9) Medical Jurisprudence
10) Taxation
11) Legal Ethics

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: CRC
1) Completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its
equivalent degree;
2) Recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and
3) Completion of all the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic
program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government. [Sec. 5,
Rule 138, RoC; Re: Letter of Atty. Mendoza, B.M. 1153 (2010)]
LAWYER’S OATH An applicant who has passed the required examination, or
has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and
subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office [Sec. 17,
Rule 138].

The lawyer's oath is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every
lawyer should at all times weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he
makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly
according to the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone
concerned [In re: Argosino, A.M. 712 (1997)].

I, ___________________, do solemnly swear that: I will maintain allegiance to

the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws
as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to
the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a
lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all fidelity as
well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary
obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me
God.

Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer

A. IN GENERAL Under the Rules of Court, it is the duty of an attorney:
(1) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines;
(2) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers;
(3) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to
be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under
the law;
(4) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such
means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the
judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(5) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve
the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his
client’s business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
(6) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to
the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the
cause with which he is charge;
(7) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action
or proceeding, or delay any man’s cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
(8) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
(9) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every
defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law [Sec. 20, Rule 138].

B. TO SOCIETY
B.1. RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES
Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal process.
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
NOTE: Canon 1 = 3rd top source of Qs on CPR. It was asked 18 times in the last
20 years as of 2014 [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT An unlawful conduct is act or omission which is against
the law. Dishonesty involves lying or cheating [Agpalo (2004)]

IMMORAL AND GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT DISTINGUISHED

Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that
show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members
of the community.

Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or

so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s
sense of decency. The Court makes these distinctions, as the supreme penalty
of disbarment from conduct requires grossly immoral, not simply immoral,
conduct. [Perez v. Catindig, A.C. No. 5816 (2015)]

A lawyer may not be disciplined for failure to pay her obligation [Toledo v.
Abalos, 315 SCRA 419 (1999)], but unwarranted obstinacy in evading the
payment of a debt has been considered as a gross misconduct. [Constantino v.
Saludares, 228 SCRA 233 (1993)]. However, issuance of bouncing checks
reflects on the lawyer’s moral character and he may be disciplined. [Lex Pareto,
Bar 2001, 2002]
A lawyer is obligated to promote respect for legal processes. This includes order
of the commission on Bar discipline of the IBP. (The lawyer’s oath likewise says,
“I will obey the duly constituted authorities.”) [Lex Pareto, Bar 2002]
GROSSLY IMMORAL ACTS
(1) Wanton disregard for the sanctity of marriage as shown when the lawyer
pursued a married woman and thereafter cohabited with her [Guevarra v. Eala,
A.C. No. 7136 (2007)]
(2) Rape of a neighbor’s wife, which constitutes serious moral depravity, even if
his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal prosecution for
rape [Calub v. Suller, A.C. No. 1474 (2000)]
NOT GROSSLY IMMORAL
(1) Mere intimacy between a man and a woman, both of whom possess no
impediment to marry, voluntarily carried and devoid of deceit on the part of the
respondent, even if a child was born out of wedlock of such relationship; it may
suggest a doubtful moral character but not grossly immoral [Figueroa v.
Barranco, SBC Case No. 519 (1997)]
(2) Stealing a kiss from a client [Advincula v. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204 (2007)]
MORAL TURPITUDE

Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice,

honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or
depravity in the private duties which a man owed his fellowmen, or to society in
general [Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No. 4585 (2004)].
Murder, estafa, rape, violation of BP 22, bribery, bigamy, adultery, seduction,
abduction, concubinage and smuggling are considered crimes involving moral
turpitude.

Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal profession.
The promotion of organizations, with knowledge of their objectives, for the
purpose of violating or evading the laws constitutes such misconduct in his office
[In re: Terrell, G.R. No. 1203 (1903)]

Rule 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or delay any man’s cause.

BARRATRY OR “MAINTENANCE”
The offense of inciting or stirring up quarrels, litigation or groundless lawsuits,
either at law or otherwise [Bouvier]
(1) Volunteering advice to bring lawsuits, except where ties of blood, relationship
or trust make it a duty to do so
(2) Hunting up defects in titles or other causes of action in order to be employed
to bring suit or breed litigation

AMBULANCE-CHASING
Unethical practice of inducing personal injury victims to bring suits. The practice
of lawyers in frequenting hospitals and homes of the injured to convince them to
go to court [Lex Pareto (2014)]
Accident-site solicitation of any kind of legal business by laymen employed by an
attorney for the purpose or by the attorney himself.
Supports perjury, the defrauding of innocent persons by judgments, upon
manufactured causes of actions and the defrauding of injured persons having
proper causes of action but ignorant of legal rights and court procedure. A lawyer
may be disciplined in his professional and private capacity. The filing of multiple
complaints reflects on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. His
conduct of vindictiveness a decidedly undesirable trait especially when one
resorts to using the court not to secure justice but merely to exact revenge
warrants his dismissal from the judiciary. [Saburnido v. Madrono, A.C. No. 4497
(2001)]

Rule 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

The function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it where
possible, by advising settlement or withholding suit. He must act as mediator for
compromise rather than an instigator and conflict [Agpalo (2004)].
It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies
and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that
his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to
acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must
resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client’s propensity to
litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his
client; its primacy is indisputable [Castañeda v. Ago, G.R. No. L28546 (1975)]

B.2. EFFICIENT, CONVENIENT LEGAL SERVICES

Canon 2. A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and
convenient manner compatible with the independence, integrity and
effectiveness of the profession.
Rule 2.01. A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.

NOTE: Asked 4 times in the last 20 years as of 2014 [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]

Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It could be that for
some lawyers, especially the neophytes in the profession, being appointed
counsel de oficio is an irksome chore. For those holding such belief, it may come
as a surprise that counsel of repute and of eminence welcome such an
opportunity. It makes even more manifest that law is indeed a profession
dedicated to the ideal of service and not a mere trade. It is understandable then
why a high degree of fidelity to duty is required of one so designated. [Ledesma
v. Climaco, G.R. No. L-23815 (1974)]
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. [Sec. 11, Art.
III, 1987 Consti]
Legal aid is not a matter of charity. It is a means for the correction of social
imbalance that may and often do lead to injustice, for which reason it is a public
responsibility of the bar [IBP Handbook, Guidelines Governing the Establishment
and Operation of the Legal Aid Office].

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.

Advice may be on what preliminary steps to take until the client has secured the
services of counsel. But he shall refrain from giving legal advice if the
reason for not accepting the case is that there involves a conflict of interest
between him and a prospective client or between a present client and a
prospective client. [Agpalo (2004)]
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed to
primarily solicit legal business.

A well-known lawyer has been engaged to run a program in which he

encourages indigent party litigants to consult him free of charge about their legal
problems over a radio and television network. Has he violated any ethical rules?
– YES, as it involves indirect advertising and solicitation and is likewise violative
of the confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship. His act may also be considered
as a form of self-praise hence subject to discipline [In re: Tagorda, 53 Phil 37,
cited in Lex Pareto (2014); Unsangan v. Tolentino, 598 SCRA 133 (2009)]
Law is not a business but a profession. Unlike a businessman, the lawyer has:
(1) Relation to the administration of justice involving sincerity, integrity and
reliability as an officer of the court;
(2) Duty of public service;
(3) Relation to clients with the highest degree of fiduciary;
(4) Relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness and
unwillingness to resort to business methods of advertising and encroachment on
their practice, or dealing directly with their clients [Agpalo (2004)]
Thus, the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice [Sec. 27,
Rule 138].

Rule 2.04. A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily
prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.

Reason for rule 2.04 is that the practice of law is profession and not a trade. It is
improper to lower your legal rates just because another lawyer has offered a
lower legal fee. [Lex Pareto (2014)]
This rule prohibits the competition in the matter of charging professional fees for
the purposed of attracting clients in favor of the lawyer who offers lower rates.
The rule does not prohibit a lawyer from charging a reduced fee or none at all to
an indigent or to a person who would have difficulty paying the fee usually
charged for such services [Agpalo (2004)]
B.3. TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED & OBJECTIVE INFORMATION ON
LEGAL SERVICES
Canon 3. A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest,
fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.

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.
NOTE: Canon 3 = 5th top source of Qs on CPR. Asked 12 times in the last 20
years as of 2014 [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]

The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer,
and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced,
but must be the outcome of character and conduct [Canon 27, Canons of
Professional Ethics; In re: Tagorda, G.R. No. 32329, (1929)].

ALLOWABLE ADVERTISEMENT
(1) Ordinary simple professional card;
(2) Publication in reputable law list with brief biographical and other informative
data which may include:
(a) Name;
(b) Associates;
(c) Address;
(d) Phone numbers;
(e) Branches of law practiced;
(f) Birthday;
(g) Day admitted to the bar;
(h) Schools and dates attended;
(i) Degrees and distinctions;
(j) Public or quasi-public offices;
(k) Posts of honor;
(l) Legal authorships;
(m) Teaching positions;
(n) Associations;
(o) Legal fraternities and societies;
(p) References and regularly represented clients must be published for that
purpose
[Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., B.M. No. 553 (1993)];
(3) Publication of simple announcement of opening of law firm, change of firm;
(4) Listing in telephone directory but not under designation of special branch of
law;
(5) If acting as an associate (specializing in a branch of law), may publish a brief
and dignified announcement to lawyers (law list, law journal);
(6) If in media, those acts incidental to his practice and not of his own initiative;
(7) Writing legal articles;
(8) Activity of an association for the purpose of legal representation.
The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it
cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or
periodical which is published primarily for other purposes.

ENTERING INTO OTHER BUSINESSES

For it to constitute as inconsistent with the lawyer’s profession, it is advisable that

they be entirely separate and apart such that a layman could distinguish between
the two functions.
The lawyer must make it clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in
another capacity.
PROHIBITED ADVERTISEMENTS
[Sec. 27, Canon of Professional Ethics]
(1) Through touters of any kind whether allied real estate firms or trust
companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills;
(2) Offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be
influenced by the lawyer;
(3) Furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their
conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of lawyer’s
position, and all other like selflaudation.
A lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and informative data in a
daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program in order to solicit legal
business [Khan v. Simbillo, A.C. 5299 (2003)].
It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant
advertises his wares. The law is a profession not a business. Solicitation of cases
by himself or through others is unprofessional and lowers the standards of the
legal profession. [In re: Tagorda, supra].

In the last analysis, where to draw the line is a question of good faith and good
taste.
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.

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
[Agpalo (2004)].
Ratio: All partners by their joint efforts over a period of years contributed to the
goodwill attached to the firm name, and the removal of the deceased partner’s
name disturbs the client goodwill built through the years.
Firms may not use misleading names showing association with other firms to
purport legal services of highest quality and ties with multinational business
enterprise especially when such firm attached as an associate cannot legally
practice law in the Philippines [Dacanay v. Baker and McKenzie, A.C. 2131
(1985)].
Rule 3.03. Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm
and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to
practice law concurrently.
Purpose: To prevent the law firm from using his name to attract legal business
and to avoid suspicion of undue influence.

A civil service officer or employee whose duty or responsibility does not require
his entire time to be at the disposal of the government may not engage in the
private practice of law without the written permit from the head of the
department concerned [Agpalo (2004)].
It is unlawful for a public official or employee to, among others, engage in the
private practice of their profession, unless authorized by the Constitution or law,
provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with official
functions [Samonte v. Gatdula, A.M. No. P-99-1292 (1999)].
If the unauthorized practice on the part of a person who assumes to be an
attorney causes damage to a party, the former may be held liable for estafa.

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE PROHIBITION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS FROM

PRACTICE OF LAW:

When any of those absolutely prohibited officials is appointed/elected/qualified,

he ceases, as a general rule, to engage in the private practice of law and his right
to practice is suspended during his tenure in office.
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.
Purpose: To prevent some lawyers from gaining an unfair advantage over others
through the use of gimmickry, press agentry or other artificial means.
This rule prohibits from making indirect publicity gimmick, such as furnishing or
inspiring newspaper comments, procuring his photograph to be published in
connection with cases which he is handling, making a courtroom scene to attract
the attention of newspapermen, or arranging for the purpose an interview with
him by media people [Agpalo 2004].
It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a criminal case is being
investigated by the authorities, even when it is being tried in court; but when said
publicity and sensationalism is allowed, even encouraged, when the case is on
appeal and is pending consideration by this Tribunal, the whole thing becomes
inexcusable, even abhorrent, and this Court, in the interest of justice, is
constrained and called upon to put an end to it and a deterrent against its
repetition by meting an appropriate disciplinary measure, even a penalty to the
one liable. [Cruz v. Salva, G.R. No. L-12871 (1959)]

B.4 PARTICIPATION IN THE IMPROVEMENT AND REFORMS IN THE LEGAL

SYSTEM

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.
NOTE: Asked 2 times in the last 20 years as of 2014 [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)
EXAMPLES
(1) Presenting position papers or resolutions for the introduction of pertinent bills
in Congress;
(2) Submitting petitions to the Supreme Court for the amendment of the Rules of
Court.

The Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP has been commended by the Supreme
Court when it promulgated a resolution wherein it requested the IBP’s National
Committee on Legal Aid to ask for the exemption from the payment of filing,
docket and other fees of clients of the legal aid offices in the various IBP
chapters [Re: Request of NCLA to Exempt Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing,
Docket and Other Fees (2009)].
B.5. PARTICIPATION IN LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

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 information regarding the law and jurisprudence.
Bar Matter No. 850 (Dated Feb. 15, 2015. Effective Mar. 1, 2015)
Re: Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for Active Members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
xxx The Court Resolved to REQUIRE all members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines to file a written entry of appearance indicating their MCLE exemption
or compliance number for the current or immediately preceding compliance
period and date of issuance thereof before appearing as counsel or engaging in
oral argument in open court or before a quasijudicial body. However, counsels
who affixed their signatures in their pleadings and indicated their MCLE
exemption or compliance number in their pleadings need not file a separate entry
of appearance. Henceforth, all counsels, including partners of law firms whose
names appear in the said pleadings, shall also indicate their MCLE exemption or
compliance number. This resolution shall take effect on March 1, 2015 following
its publication in a newspaper of general circulation."

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE) PROGRAM

A program which requires lawyers to show proof of having undertaken

improvement in their knowledge as a precondition for renewing their license to
practice [Lex Pareto (2014)]

There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court’s order to submit
proof of his MCLE compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities given
him. "Court orders are to be respected not because the judges who issue them
should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should
be extended to the judicial branch of the Government. This is absolutely essential
if our Government is to be a government of laws and not of men. Respect must
be had not because of the incumbents to the positions, but because of the
authority that vests in them. Disrespect to judicial incumbents is disrespect to that
branch the Government to which they belong, as well as to the State which has
instituted the judicial system." [Rodriguez-Manahan v. Flores, A.C. No. 8954
(2013)]

APPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENT LAWYERS

Canon 6. These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the

discharge of their official duties.

NOTE: Asked 5 times in the last 20 years as of 2014 [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]

Ratio: The rule is a reiteration of the principal in public law, which is that a public
office is a public trust and a public servant owes utmost fidelity to the public
service.

A member of the bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional
obligation. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost
fidelity to the public service. A lawyer in public service is a keeper of public
faith and is burdened with a high degree of social responsibility, perhaps
higher than her brethren in private practice [Vitriolo v. Dasig, A.C. 4984
(2003)].
May a former government lawyer appear in a case against the government? –
YES, he may appear in a case unless there is a specific ethical rule or provision
of law which prohibits him from doing so. [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]
When may a former government lawyer be prohibited from accepting a
legal engagement? [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]
a. A lawyer shall not after leaving the government service accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in
said service;
b. Retired members of the judiciary receiving pensions form the government
should not practice law where the government is the adverse party or in a
criminal case involving a government employee in the performance of his duties
as such
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.

A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial officer with the two-fold aim which is that
guilt shall not escape or innocence suffers. He should not hesitate to recommend
to the court the acquittal of an accused if the evidence in his possession shows
that the accused is innocent [Agpalo (2004)].
In criminal cases, a public prosecutor should be present for the following
reasons: [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]
1. To protect the interest of the State (As the criminal case is in reality a crime
against the State)

2. To see to it that justice is done (Rule 6.01)

Naturally, the private prosecutor is interested only to convict the accused.
However, the primary duty of the public prosecutor is not to convict, but to see
that justice is done.
A prosecuting attorney, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file
a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence
to prop up the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a
different conclusion. This is not to discount the possibility of the commission of
abuses on the part of the prosecutor. But we must have to recognize that a
prosecuting attorney should not be unduly compelled to work against his
conviction. In case of doubt, we should give him the benefit thereof. A contrary
rule may result in our courts being unnecessarily swamped with unmeritorious
cases. Worse still, a criminal suspect's right to due process - the sporting idea of
fair play - may be transgressed. So it is, that in People vs. Sope, this Court made
the pronouncement that "[i]t is very logical that the prosecuting attorney, being
the one charged with the prosecution of offenses, should determine the
information to be filed and cannot be controlled by the offended party." [People v.
Pineda, G.R. No. L-26222 (1967)]
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.

In relation to Rule 3.03, Canon 3, if the law allows a public official to practice
law concurrently, he must not use his public position to feather his law
practice. Moreover, he should not only avoid all impropriety. Neither should he
even inferentially create a public image that he is utilizing his public position to
advance his professional success or personal interest at the expense of the
public [Agpalo (2004)].
It bears stressing also that government lawyers who are public servants owe
fidelity to the public service, a public trust. As such, they should be more
sensitive to their professional obligations as their disreputable conduct is more
likely to be magnified in the public eye [Huyssen v. Gutierrez, A.C. 6707
(2006)].
Sec. 7 of RA 6713 generally provides for the prohibited acts and transactions
of public officials and employees.
Sec. 7(b)(2) prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of their
profession during their incumbency.
As an exception, a public official or employee can engage in the practice of
his or her profession under the following conditions:
first, the private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by the law;
and second, the practice will not conflict, or tend to conflict, with his or her
official functions.
The prohibitions continue to apply for a period of one year after the public official
or employee’s resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except for
the private practice of profession under subsection (b)(2), which can already be
undertaken even within the one-year prohibition period. As an exception to this
exception, the one-year prohibited period applies with respect to any matter
before the office the public officer or employee used to work with. [Query of
Karen Silverio-Buffe, 596 SCRA 378 (2009)].
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.
HOW GOVERNMENT LAWYERS MAY LEAVE GOVERNMENT SERVICE:
(RREAD)
(1) Retirement;
(2) Resignation;
(3) Expiration of the term of office;
(4) Abandonment;
(5) Dismissal
General rule: Practice of profession is allowed immediately after leaving public
service.
Exceptions: The lawyer cannot practice as to matters with which he had
connection during his term. This prohibition lasts:
(1) For one year, if he had not intervened;
(2) Permanently, if he had intervened.
The “matter” contemplated are those that are adverse-interest conflicts
(substantial relatedness and adversity between the government matter and the
new client’s matter in interest) and congruent-interest representation conflicts.
“Intervention” should be significant and substantial which can or have affected
the interest of others [PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 151809- 12 (2005)].

C. TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

C.1. INVOLVEMENT IN THE IBP

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.
i. Bar Integration
The Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the
Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the
standards of the legal profession improve the administration of justice and enable
the bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively. [Sec. 1, RA 6397].
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not
already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar
Examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an official national
organization for the well-defined but unorganized and uncohesive group of which
every lawyer is already a member [In the matter of the IBP, 49 SCRA 22 (1973)].
The IBP is essentially a semi-governmental entity, a private organization
endowed with certain governmental attributes. While it is composed of lawyers
who are private individuals, the IBP exists to perform certain vital public functions
and to assist the government particularly in the improvement of the
administration of justice, the upgrading of the standards of the legal profession,
and its proper regulation.
The basic postulate of the IBP is that it is non- political in character and that there
shall be neither lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of the IBP Officers. The
fundamental assumption is that the officers would be chosen on the basis of
professional merit and willingness and ability to serve. The unseemly ardor with
which the candidates pursued the presidency of the association detracted from
the dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being
bribed to vote did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the
public’s esteem [In re: 1989 Elections of the IBP, A.M. 491 (1989)].
ii. General Objectives of the IBP
(1) To elevate the standards of the legal profession;
(2) To improve the administration of justice;
(3) To enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
iii. Purposes of the IBP – AFS-CPEP
(1) To assist in the administration of justice;
(2) To foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity,
learning, professional competence, public service and conduct;
(3) To safeguard the professional interest of its members;
(4) To cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;
(5) To provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform,
pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of the bar to the bench and to
the public, and publish information relating thereto;
(6) To encourage and foster legal education;
(7) To promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and
adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon.
[Note: Purposes of the IBP is one of the favorite questions asked in the Bar. –
Faculty Ed.]
iv. Membership and Dues
RoC, Rule 139-A, Sec. 9. Every member of the IBP shall pay such annual dues
as the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme
Court.
A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent of the collection from each Chapter shall be
set aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the
compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.
RoC, Rule 139-A, Sec. 10. Default in the payment of annual dues:
(1) For six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the IBP; and
(2) For one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent
member from the roll of attorneys.
A membership fee in the IBP is an exaction for regulation, while the purpose of a
tax is revenue. If the Court has inherent power to regulate the bar, it follows that
as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that purpose. It
would not be possible to push through an Integrated Bar program without means
to defray the concomitant expenses. The doctrine of implied powers necessarily
includes the power to impose such an exaction [In the matter of the IBP, 49
SCRA 22 (1973)].
A lawyer can engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues, and it does
not matter if his practice is “limited.” Moreover, senior citizens are not exempted
from paying membership dues [Santos v. Llamas, A.C. 4749 (2000)].
In a case involving a Filipino lawyer staying abroad, the Supreme Court said that
there is nothing in the law or rules, which allows his exemption from payment of
membership dues. At most, he could have informed the Secretary of the
Integrated Bar of his intention to stay abroad before he left.
Insuch case, his membership in the IBP could have been terminated and his
obligation to pay dues discontinued [Letter of Atty. Arevalo, B.M. 1370 (2005)].
C.2. UPHOLDING THE DIGNITY & INTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSION

Canon 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
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.
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to
defend his client’s rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of
his client’s cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth [Young v.
Batuegas, A.C. 5379 (2003)].
PENALTIES
(1) Disqualification of the applicant from taking the bar, if the concealment is
discovered before he takes the bar examinations;
(2) Prohibition from taking the lawyer’s oath, if the concealment is discovered
after the candidate has taken the bar examinations;
(3) Revocation of license to practice, if the concealment was discovered after he
has taken his lawyer’s oath [In re: Diao, A.C. 244 (1963)].
A declaration in one’s application for admission to the bar examinations that the
applicant was “single”, when he was in fact married, was a gross
misrepresentation of a material fact made in utter bad faith, for which the
applicant should be made answerable. It indubitably exhibits lack of good moral
character [Leda v. Tabang, A.C. 2505 (1992)].
It is the fact of concealment and not the commission of the crime itself that
makes him morally unfit to become a lawyer. [In Re: Galang, A.M. 1162 (1975)]

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.
A lawyer should volunteer information or cooperate in any investigation
concerning alleged anomaly in the bar examination so that those candidates who
failed therein can be ferreted out and those lawyers responsible therefor can be
disbarred [In re: Parazo, G.R. 082027 (1948)].
A lawyer should not readily execute an affidavit of good moral character in favor
of an applicant who has not live up to the standard set by law [Agpalo (2004)].
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.
It is not necessary for a lawyer to be convicted for an offense before a lawyer can
be disciplined for gross immorality [Agpalo (2004)].
There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the
lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life or in his private transaction
because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one
time and a mere citizen at another [Funa]
ACTS ADVERSELY REFLECTIVE OF A LAWYER’S FITNESS TO PRACTICE
LAW:
(1) Having adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses;
(2) Siring a child with a woman other than legal wife [Zaguirre v. Castillo, A.C.
4921 (2003)];
(3) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(4) Commission of fraud or falsehood.
To justify suspension or disbarment, the act must not only be immoral, it must be
grossly immoral as well. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and
false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to
be reprehensible to a high degree. [Reyes v. Wong, A.M. 547 (1975)]
Mere intimacy between a man and a woman, either of whom possesses no legal
impediment to marry, voluntarily carried on and devoid of any deceit on the part
of the lawyer, is neither so corrupt nor so unprincipled as to warrant imposition of
disciplinary sanction against him, even if as a result, the woman begot a child
[Soberano v. Villanueva, A.C. 215 (1962)].
The term “moral turpitude” means anything which is done contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty or good morals, or to any act of vileness, baseness
or depravity in the private and social duties that a man owes his fellowmen or to
society, contrary to the accepted rule between man and man. [In re Gutierrez,
G.R. L-363 (1962)]
In general, all crimes of which fraud and deceit is an element or those which
are inherently contrary to rules of right, conduct, honesty or morality in a civilized
community, involve moral turpitude. [Agpalo (2004)]
C.3. COURTESY, FAIRNESS & CANDOR TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL
COLLEAGUES

Canon 8. A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.
LAWYER DON’Ts:
(1) Take advantage of the excusable unpreparedness or absence of counsel
during the trial of a case;
(2) Make use, to his or to his client’s benefit, the secrets of the adverse party
acquired through design or inadvertence;
(3) Criticize or impute ill motive to the lawyer who accepts what in his opinion is a
weak case;
(4) Proceed to negotiate with the client of another lawyer to waive all kinds of
claim when the latter is still handling the civil case [Camacho v. Pangulayan, A.C.
4807 (2000)].
(5) Steal another lawyer’s client;
(6) Induce a client to retain him by promise of better service, good result or
reduced fees for his services;
(7) Disparage another lawyer, make comparisons or publicize his talent as a
means to further his law practice;
(8) In the absence of the adverse party’s counsel, interview the adverse party
and question him as to the facts of the case even if the adverse party was willing;
(9) Sanction the attempt of his client to settle a litigated matter with the adverse
party without the consent nor knowledge of the latter’s counsel.

Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language, which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
A lawyer should treat the opposing counsel and his brethren in the law profession
with courtesy, dignity, and civility. They may do as adversaries do in law: strive
mightily but eat and drink as friends [Valencia v. Cabanting, A.M. 1302 (1991)].
A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as
befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession
[Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, G.R. L- 27072 (1970)]

IMPROPER LANGUAGE
(1) Behaving without due regard for the trial court and the opposing counsel and
threatening the court that he would file a petition for certiorari [Bugaring v.
Espanol, G.R. No. 133090 (2001)];
(2) Filing of a civil case against the opposing counsel without justification but only
to get a leverage in the pending case [Reyes v. Chiong, A.C. 5148 (2003)];
(3) Calling an adverse counsel as “bobo” or using the word “ay que bobo” in
reference to the manner of offering evidence [Castillo v. Padilla, A.C. 2339
(1984)].
(4) Stating that “justice is blind and also “deaf and dumb”” [In Re: Almacen, G.R.
L-27654(1970)].
The highest reward that can come to a lawyer is the esteem of his professional
brethren. That esteem is won in unique conditions and proceeds from an
impartial judgment in professional trials. It cannot be purchased. [Agpalo (2004)]
Lack or want of intention is no excuse for the disrespectful language employed.
Counsel cannot escape responsibility by claiming that his words did not mean
what any reader must have understood them as meaning [Rheem of the
Philippines v Ferrer, G.R. L-22979 (1967)].
Rule 8.02. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer,
without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief
against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.

A LAWYER MAY:
(1) Accept employment to handle a matter previously handled by another lawyer:
(a) Provided the other lawyer has been given notice of termination of service lest
it amounts to an improper encroachment upon the professional employment of
the original counsel [Laput v. Remotigue, A.M. 219 (1962)]; or
(b) In the absence of a notice of termination from the client, provided he has
obtained the conformity of the counsel whom he would substitute; or
(c) In the absence of such conformity, a lawyer must at least give sufficient notice
to original counsel so that original counsel has the opportunity to protect his claim
against the client.
(2) Give advice or assistance to any person who seeks relief against an unfaithful
or neglectful lawyer;
(3) Associate as a colleague in a case, provided he communicate with the
original counsel before making an appearance as co-counsel:
(a) Should the original lawyer object, he should decline association but if the
original lawyer is relieved, he may come into the case;
(b) Should it be impracticable for him, whose judgment has been overruled by his
co- counsel to cooperate effectively, he should ask client to relieve him.
C.4. NO ASSISTANCE IN UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
Canon 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the
unauthorized practice of law.
Generally, to engage in the practice of law is to do any of those acts which are
characteristic of the legal profession. It embraces any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure or
calls for legal knowledge, training and experience. [Philippine Lawyers Ass’n v.
Agrava, G.R. L12426 (1959)]
EXAMPLES OF PRACTICE OF LAW
(1) Legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and
obligations
(2) Preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles
not possessed by ordinary laymen;
(3) Appearance for clients before public tribunals, whether, administrative, quasi-
judicial or legislative agency.
ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF LAW EXAMPLES
(1) Appearing as counsel even before taking lawyer’s oath [Aguirre v. Rana,
B.M. 1036 (2003)];
(2) Using the title “Attorney” in his name even though he is a Shari’a lawyer
[Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. SDC-97-2-P (1997)].
A corporation cannot engage in the practice law directly or indirectly. It may only
hire inhouse lawyers to attend to its legal business. A corporation cannot employ
a lawyer to appear for others for its benefit. A corporation cannot perform the
conditions required membership to the bar. In addition, the confidential and trust
relation between an attorney and his client cannot arise if the attorney is
employed by a corporation.
NOT ALLOWED:
(1) Automobile club that solicits membership by advertising that it offers free legal
services of its legal department to members;
(2) Collection agency or credit exchange that exploits lawyer’s services;
(3) Bank using lawyer’s name as director in advertising its services in drawing
wills and other legal documents.
Unauthorized practice of law applies to both non-lawyers and lawyers
prohibited from the private practice of law.
The practice of law is not a natural, property or constitutional right but a mere
privilege [In Re Edillon, A.M. 1928 (1978)].
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 [Phil. Assoc. of Free Labor Union v.
Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., G.R. L-23959 (1971)].

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.

Ratio: The practice of law is limited only to individuals who have the necessary
educational qualifications and good moral character. Moreover, an attorney-client
relationship is a strictly personal one. Lawyers are selected on account of their
special fitness through their learning or probity for the work at hand.
ACTS THAT MAY ONLY BE DONE BY A LAWYER
(1) The computation and determination of the period within which to appeal an
adverse judgment [Eco v. Rodriguez, G.R. L-16731 (1960)];
(2) The examination of witnesses or the presentation of evidence [Robinson v.
Villafuerte, G.R. L-5346 (1911)].

MAY BE DELEGATED TO NON-LAWYERS:

(1) The examination of case law;
(2) Finding and interviewing witnesses;
(3) Examining court records;
(4) Delivering papers and similar matters.

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 nonlawyer employees in a retirement
plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profitable sharing
arrangement.

Ratio: Allowing non-lawyers to get attorney’s fees would confuse the public as to
whom they should consult. It would leave the bar in a chaotic condition because
nonlawyers are also not subject to disciplinary action.
An agreement between a union lawyer and a layman president of the union to
divide equally the attorney’s fees that may be awarded in a labor case violates
this rule, and is illegal and immoral [Amalgamated Laborers Assn. v. CIR, G.R. L-
23467 (1968)].
A donation by a lawyer to a labor union of part of his attorney’s fees taken from
the proceeds of a judgment secured by him for the labor union is improper
because it amounts to a rebate or commission [Halili v. CIR, G.R. L-24864
(1965)].
A contract between a lawyer and a layman granting the latter a percentage of the
fees collected from clients secured by the layman and enjoining the lawyer not to
deal directly with said clients is null and void, and the lawyer may be disciplined
for unethical conduct [Tan Tek Beng v. David, A.C. 1261 (1983)].
While non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any labor arbiter, they are
still not entitled to receive professional fees. The statutory rule that an attorney
shall be entitled to have and recover from his client a reasonable compensation
or remuneration for the services they have rendered presupposes the existence
of an attorneyclient relationship.
Such a relationship cannot exist when the client’s representative is a non-lawyer
[Five J Taxi v. NLRC, G.R. 111474 (1994)].

D. TO THE COURTS
D.1. CANDOR, FAIRNESS & GOOD FAITH TOWARDS THE COURTS
Canon 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

A lawyer is, first and foremost, an officer of the court. Accordingly, should there
be a conflict between his duty to his client and that to the court, he should resolve
the conflict against the former and in favor of the latter, his primary responsibility
being to uphold the cause of justice [Cobb Perez v. Lantin, G.R. L-22320 (1968)].
Candor in all of the lawyer’s dealings is the very essence of honorable
membership in the legal profession [Cuaresma v. Daquis, G.R. L35113 (1975)].
A lawyer’s conduct before the court should be characterized by candor and
fairness. The administration of justice would gravely suffer if lawyers do not act
with complete candor and honesty before the courts [Serana v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. 162059 (2008)].
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to
defend his client’s cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth.
[Young v. Batuegas, A.C. 5379 (2003)].
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.
A lawyer should not conceal the truth from the court, nor mislead the court in any
manner no matter how demanding his duties to clients may be. His duties to his
client should yield to his duty to deal candidly with the court. For no client is
entitled to receive from the lawyer any service involving dishonesty to the courts
[Comments of IBP Committee].
Some cases of Falsehood Committed by Lawyers:
1. Falsely stating in a deed of sale that property is free from all liens and
encumbrances [Sevilla v. Zoleta, 96 Phil 979 (1955)];
2. Falsifying a power of attorney to use in collecting the money due to the
principal and appropriating the money for his own benefit [In Re: Rusiana, A.C.
270 (1959)];
3. Denying having received the notice to file brief which is belied by the return
card [Ragasajo v. IAC, G.R. L-69129 (1987)];
4. Presenting falsified documents in court which he knows to be false [Bautista v.
Gonzales, A.M. 1625 (1990)];
5. Filing false charges or groundless suits [Retia v. Gorduiz, A.M. 1388 (1980)].
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.
A lawyer who deliberately made it appear that the quotations in his motion for
reconsiderations were findings of the Supreme Court, when they were just part of
the memorandum of the Court Administrator, and who misspelled the name of
the complainant and made the wrong citation of authority is guilty of violation of
this rule [COMELEC v. Noynay, G.R. 132365 (1998)]
It is the bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the
same word for-word and punctuation mark-forpunctuation mark the decisions of
the Supreme Court. Ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly
quoted, the decisions and rulings may lose their proper and correct meaning, to
the detriment of other courts, lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled
[Insular Life Employees Co. v. Insular Life Association, G.R. L-25291 (1971)].
The legal profession demands that lawyers thoroughly go over pleadings,
motions and other documents dictated or prepared by them, typed or transcribed
by their secretaries or clerks, before filing them with the court. If a client is bound
by the acts of his counsel, with more reason should counsel be bound by the acts
of his secretary who merely follows his orders [Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA, G.R.
100643 (1992)].
Rule 10.03. A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.
Filing multiple actions constitutes an abuse of the court’s processes. Those who
file multiple or repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary action for
incompetence or willful violation of their duties as attorneys to act with good
fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions that appear to be just and
consistent with truth and honor [Olivares v. Villalon, A.C. 6323 (2007)].
A lawyer should not abuse his right of recourse to the courts for the purpose of
arguing a cause that had been repeatedly rebuffed. [Garcia v. Francisco, A.C.
3923 (1993)].

D.2. RESPECT FOR COURTS & JUDICIAL OFFICERS

Canon 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and
to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Observing respect due to the courts means that a lawyer should conduct himself
toward judges:
(1) With courtesy everyone is entitled to expect [Paragas v Cruz, G.R. L-24438
(1965)];
(2) With the propriety and dignity required by the courts [Salcedo v Hernandez,
G.R. L42992 (1935)].
Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the Court to
promote the administration of justice. Respect to the courts guarantees the
stability of other institutions. [In re: Sotto, 82 Phil 595 (1949)].
If a pleading containing derogatory, offensive and malicious statements is
submitted in the same court or judge in which the proceedings are pending, it is
direct contempt, equivalent as it is to a misbehavior committed in the presence of
or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. Direct
contempt is punishable summarily [In re: Letter of Atty. Sorreda, A.M. 5-3-04
(2006)].
Liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality,
integrity, and authority of the members of the Court result in the obstruction and
perversion of the dispensation of justice [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
148560 (2000)].
Even as lawyers passionately and vigorously propound their points of view, they
are bound by certain rules of conduct for the legal profession. This Court is
certainly not claiming that it should be shielded from criticism. All the Court
demands are the same respect and courtesy that one lawyer owes to another
under established ethical standards. There is no exemption from this sworn duty
for law professors, regardless of their status in the academic community or the
law school to which they belong [Re: Letter of the UP Faculty, A.M. 10-10-4-SC
(2011)].
Rule 11.01. A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired. Respect begins with
the lawyer’s outward physical appearance in court. Sloppy or informal attire
adversely reflects on the lawyer and demeans the dignity and solemnity of court
proceedings.
A lawyer who dresses improperly may be cited with contempt [Agpalo (2004)].

PROPER ATTIRE
Male: Long-sleeved Barong Tagalog or coat and tie
Female: Semi-formal or business attires
Judges: Same attire as above under their robes
Courts have ordered a male attorney to wear a necktie and have prohibited a
female attorney from wearing a hat. However, the permission of a dress with a
hemline five inches above the knee was held to be acceptable as such “had
become an accepted mode of dress even in places of worship” [Aguirre (2006)]

Rule 11.02. A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings. Punctuality is

demanded by the respect which the lawyer owes to the court, the parties, and the
opposing counsel [Funa].
Inexcusable absence from, or repeated tardiness in, attending a pre-trial or
hearing may subject the lawyer to disciplinary action as his actions show
disrespect to the court and are therefore considered contemptuous behavior
[Agpalo (2004)].
Non-appearance at hearings on the ground that the issue to be heard has
become moot and academic is a lapse in judicial propriety [De Gracia v. Warden
of Makati, G.R. L-42032 (1976)].
Rule 11.03. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the courts.
A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful, as
befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession
[Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, G.R. L27072 (1970)].
Lawyers may use strong language to drive home a point; they have a right to be
in pursuing a client’s cause [The British Co. v De Los Angeles, G.R. L-33720
(1975)].
However, the use of abusive language by counsel against the opposing counsel
constitutes at the same time disrespect to the dignity of the court justice.
Moreover, the use of impassioned language in pleadings, more often than not,
creates more heat than light [Buenaseda v. Flavier, G.R. 106719 (1993)].
Lawyers cannot resort to scurrilous remarks that have the tendency to degrade
the courts and destroy the public confidence in them [In Re: Almacen, G.R. L-
27654 (1970)].
The court does not close itself to comments and criticisms so long as they are
fair and dignified. Going beyond the limits of fair comments by using insulting,
disparaging and, intemperate language necessitates and warrants a rebuke from
the court. While it is expected of lawyers to advocate their client’s cause, they are
not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation and innuendo [Sangalang v. IAC,
G.R. 71169 (1988)].

Rule 11.04. A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the
record or have no materiality to the case.
Such act would undermine the confidence of the people in the honesty and
integrity of the members of the court, and would consequently lower or degrade
the administration of justice [In Re: Almacen, G.R. L-27654 (1970)].

The rule allows criticism so long as it is supported by the record or it is material to

the case. A lawyer’s right to criticize the acts of courts and judges in a proper and
respectful way and through legitimate channels is well recognized [Agpalo
(2004)].
The cardinal condition of all such criticism is that it shall be bona fide, and shall
not spill over the wall of decency and propriety [Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R.
79690-707 (1989)].

Any serious accusation against a judicial officer that is utterly baseless,

unsubstantiated and unjustified shall not be countenanced [Go v. Abrogar, G.R.
152672 (2007)].
The constitutional right to freedom of expression of members of the bar may be
circumscribed by their ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the courts
and to uphold the public’s faith in the legal profession and the justice system [Re:
Letter of UP Faculty, A.C. 10-10-4-SC (2011)].
Rule 11.05. A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only. The duty to respect does not preclude a lawyer from filing
administrative complaints against erring judges.
Can still act as counsel for clients who have legitimate grievances against them.
However, the lawyer shall not file an administrative case until he has exhausted
judicial remedies which result in a finding that the judge has gravely erred
[Agpalo (2004)].
It has been held in Maceda v. Vasquez that in criminal complaints against a
judge or other court employees arising from their administrative duties, the
Ombudsman must defer action and refer the same to the Supreme Court for
determination whether said judges or court employees acted within the scope of
their administrative duties.
Otherwise, in the absence of any administrative action, the investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the court’s power of
administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the
doctrine of separation of powers.
D.3. ASSISTANCE IN THE SPEEDY & EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE

Canon 12. A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. [Sec.6, Art. III, 1987 Constitution]
It is the duty of an attorney not to encourage either the commencement or the
continuance of an action or proceeding or delay any man’s cause from any
corrupt motive or interest. [Sec. 20(g), Rule 138].
The filing of another action containing the same subject matter, in violation of the
doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to this canon [Siy Lim v. Montano, A.C.
5653 (2006)].

Rule 12.01. A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared
himself on the law and the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the
order of its preference. He should also be ready with the original documents for
comparison with the copies.

Without adequate preparation, the lawyer may not be able to effectively assist
the court in the efficient administration of justice.
NON-OBSERVANCE OF PREPARATION:
(1) The postponement of the pre-trial or hearing, which would thus entail delay in
the early disposition of the case;
(2) The judge may consider the client nonsuited or in default;
(3) The judge may consider the case deemed submitted for decision without
client’s evidence, to his prejudice [Agpalo (2004)].
Half of the wor k of the lawyer is done in the office. It is spent in the study and
research. Inadequate preparation obstructs the administration of justice [Martin’s
Legal Ethics (1988)].
A newly hired counsel who appears in a case in the midstream is presumed and
obliged to acquaint himself with all the antecedent processes and proceedings
that have transpired in the record prior to his takeover [Villasis v. CA, G.R. L-
34369 (1974)].

Some Acts Which Amount to Obstruction in the Administration of Justice:

1. Inadequate preparation;
2. Instructing complaining witness in a criminal action not to appear at the
schedule hearing so that the case against the client would be dismissed;
3. Asking a client to plead guilty to a crime which the lawyer knows his client did
not commit;
4. Advising a client who is detained for crime to escape from prison;
5. Employing dilatory tactics to frustrate satisfaction of clearly valid claims;
6. Prosecuting clearly frivolous cases or appeals to drain the resources of the
other party and compel him to submit out of exhaustion;
7. Filing multiple petitions or complaints for a cause that has been previously
rejected in the false expectation of getting favorable action;
8. Other acts of similar nature [Funa].

Rule 12.02. A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.

Ratio: There is an affirmative duty of a lawyer to check against useless litigations.

His signature in every pleading constitutes a certificate by him that to the best of
his knowledge there is a good ground to support it and that it is not to interpose
for delay. The willful violation of this rule may subject him to appropriate
disciplinary action or render him liable for the costs of litigation [Agpalo].

CIRCUMSTANCE OF FORUM SHOPPING

(1) When, as a result or in anticipation of an adverse decision in one forum, a
party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than
appeal or certiorari by raising identical causes of action, subject matter and
issues.
(2) The institution of involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other
court would come out with a favorable disposition [Araneta v. Araneta, G.R.
190814 (2013)].
An indicium of the presence of, or the test for determining whether a litigant
violated the rule against, forum shopping is where the elements of litis pendentia
are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in
the other case.
REQUISITES OF LITIS PENDENTIA
(1) Identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in
both actions;

(2) Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the
same facts; and
(3) Identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in
the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res
judicata in the other [HSBC v. Catalan, G.R. 159590 (2004)].

RES JUDICATA REQUIRES THAT:

(1) There be a decision on the merits;
(2) It be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(3) The decision is final; and
(4) The two actions involved identical parties, subject matter, and causes of
action.

CONTENTS OF CERTIFIED COMPLAINT:

(1) He has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof;
 (2) If he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five days there from
to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
filed.
Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 5. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements
shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless
otherwise provided, upon motion after hearing.

SUBMISSION OF A FALSE CERTIFICATION OR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH

ANY OF THE UNDERTAKINGS IN A CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING:
(1) Shall constitute indirect contempt of court;
(2) Without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions.
IF ACTS OF THE PARTY OR HIS COUNSEL CONSTITUTE WILLFUL AND
DELIBERATE FORUM SHOPPING:
(1) Be a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice;
(2) Constitute direct contempt;
(3) Be a cause for administrative sanctions.

The rule against forum shopping and the requirement that a certification to that
effect be complied with in the filing of complaints, petitions or other initiatory
pleadings in all courts and agencies applies to quasi-judicial bodies, such as the
NLRC or Labor Arbiter [Agpalo (2004)].
It is the duty of the lawyer to resist the whims and caprices of his client and to
temper his client’s propensity to litigate. [Castañeda v. Ago, G.R. L-28546
(1975)].
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.
The court censures the practice of counsels who secures repeated extensions of
time to file their pleadings and thereafter simply let the period lapse without
submitting the pleading on even an explanation or manifestation of their failure to
do so. There exists a breach of duty not only to the court but also to the client
[Achacoso v. CA, G.R. L35867 (1973)].
An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the best of his ability and
with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes
inexcusable negligence on his part [Ford v. Daitol, A.C. 3736 (1995)].

Rule 12.04. A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse court processes.

It is one thing to exert to the utmost one’s ability to protect the interest of one’s
client. It is quite another thing to delay if not defeat the recovery of what is justly
due and demandable due to the misleading acts of a lawyer [Manila Pest Control
v. WCC, G.R. L27662 (1968)].

Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party should not be
denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing part.
Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role of
courts in disposing justiciable controversies with finality [Aguilar v. Manila
Banking Corporation, G.R. 157911 (2006)].

If a lawyer is honestly convinced of the futility of an appeal in a civil suit, he

should not hesitate to inform his client. He should advise his client to accept the
judgment of the trial court and thus accord respect to the just claim of the
opposite party. [Agpalo (2001)]
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.

Ratio: The purpose is to prevent the suspicion that he is coaching the witness
what to say during the resumption of the examination; to uphold and maintain fair
play with the other party and to prevent the examining lawyer from being tempted
to coach his own witness to suit his purpose [Callanta].
Rule 12.06. A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself
or to impersonate another.
Art. 184, RPC. The lawyer who presented a witness knowing him to be a false
witness is criminally liable for offering false testimony in evidence.
The lawyer is both criminally and administratively liable. Subornation of perjury is
committed by a person who knowingly and willfully procures another to swear
falsely and the witness suborned [or induced] does testify under circumstances
rendering him guilty of perjury [US v. Ballena, G.R. L-6294 (1911)].

Rule 12.07. A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor
needlessly inconvenience him.
It is the duty of a lawyer to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance
no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party or witness unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged [Sec 20(f), Rule
138].

RIGHTS OF WITNESSES [Sec. 3, Rule 132]

(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper or insulting questions and from a
harsh or insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require
(3) Not to be examined except as to matters pertinent to the issues before the
court;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an
offense unless otherwise provided by law;
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade the witness’ reputation, but a
witness must answer the fact of any previous final conviction for a criminal
offense.

PD 1829 PENALIZES THE FOLLOWING:

(1) Threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon
his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of
his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of,
or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful
or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or
in official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(2) Giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law
enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life
or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in
confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information
and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the
investigator or to the court.
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.
Ratio: The underlying reason for the impropriety of a lawyer acting in such dual
capacity lies in the difference between the function of a witness and that of an
advocate. The function of a witness is to tell the facts as he recalls then in
answer to questions. The function of an advocate is that of a partisan.

It is difficult to distinguish between the zeal of an advocate and the fairness and
impartiality of a disinterested witness. The lawyer will find it hard to disassociate
his relation to his client as an attorney and his relation to the party as a witness
[Agpalo].

When a lawyer is a witness for his client, except as to merely formal matters,
such as the attestation or custody of an instrument and the like, he should leave
the trial of the case to other counsel. Except when essential to the ends of
justice, a lawyer should avoid testifying in court in behalf of his client [PNB v. Uy
Teng Piao, G.R. L-35252 (1932)].

D.4. RELIANCE ON MERITS OF HIS CAUSE & AVOIDANCE OF ANY

IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE OR GIVES THE
APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCE UPON THE COURTS
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.
A lawyer should avoid marked attention and unusual hospitality to a judge
uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties because they subject him and
the judge to misconceptions of motives.
[Canon 3].
In order not to subject both the judge and the lawyer to suspicion, the common
practice of some lawyers of making judges and prosecutors godfathers of their
children to enhance their influence and their law practice should be avoided by
judges and lawyers alike [Report of IBP Committee].
It is improper for a litigant or counsel to see a judge in chambers and talk to him
about a matter related to the case pending in the court of said judge [Austria v.
Masaquel, G.R. L-22536 (1967)].

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.

Ratio: Newspaper publications regarding a pending or anticipated litigation may

interfere with a fair trial, prejudice the administration of justice, or subject a
respondent or an accused to a trial by publicity and create a public inference of
guilt against him [Agpalo].
Public statements may be considered contemptuous when the character of the
act done and its direct tendency to prevent and obstruct the discharge of official
duty.
Once a litigation is concluded, the judge who decided it is subject to the same
criticism as any other public official because then, his ruling becomes public
property and is thrown open to public consumption. In a concluded litigation, a
lawyer enjoys a wider latitude of comment or on criticism of the judge’s decision
or actuation. [In re Gomez, 43 Phil 376 (1922)]
In the original decision of the Supreme Court in Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage
of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against Former President
Joseph Estrada (2001), it was stated that the propriety of granting or denying the
petition involve the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of
the press and the right to public information, on the one hand, and the
fundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand, along with the
constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and
impartial trial. It was held that when these rights race against one another, the
right of the accused must be preferred to win, considering the possibility of losing
not only the precious liberty but also the very life of an accused.
In the resolution of the motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court allowed
the video recording of proceedings, but provided that the release of the tapes for
broadcast should be delayed. In so doing, concerns that those taking part in the
proceedings will be playing to the cameras and will thus be distracted from the
proper performance of their roles – whether as counsel, witnesses, court
personnel, or judges – will be allayed.

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.

Ratio: The rule is based upon the principle of separation of powers [Aguirre
(2006)].
A complaint against justices cannot be filed with the Office of the President.
[Maglasang v. People, G.R. No. 90083 (1990)]

E. TO THE CLIENTS

The attorney-client relationship is:

(1) Strictly personal;
(2) Highly confidential;
(3) Fiduciary.
A written contract, although the best evidence to show the presence of an
attorney-client relationship is not essential for the employment of an attorney.
Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an
attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it is
sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in
any matter pertinent to his profession [Pacana v. Pascual-Lopez, A.C. No. 8243
(2009)].
E.1. AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION
Canon 14. A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy. i. Services
Regardless of a Person’s Status
Rule 14.01. A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of
the latter’s race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion
regarding the guilt of said person.
General Rule: A lawyer is not obliged to act as legal counsel for any person who
may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment.
Exceptions:
(1) A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy [Canon 14]
(2) 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 14.01]
(3) A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client
unless:
a. He is in no 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 14.02]
(4) A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client unless:
a. He is in no 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 14.03]
It is the duty of an attorney, in the defense of a person accused of a crime, by all
fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the
accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person
may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law [Sec. 20(i), Rule 138]
Ratio: It is a declared policy of the State to value the dignity of every human
person and guarantee the rights of every individual, particularly those who cannot
afford the services of counsel [RA 9999 or Free Legal Assistance Act of 2010].
RA 9999 provides incentives for free legal service. Thus, a lawyer or professional
partnerships rendering actual free legal services shall be entitled to an allowable
deduction from the gross income,
(1) The amount that could have been collected for the actual free legal services
rendered OR
(2) Up to 10% of the gross income derived from the actual performance of legal
profession, whichever is lower.
This is different from the 60-hour mandatory legal aid services under Bar Matter
2012.
INDIGENT:
(1) A person who has no visible means of income or whose income is insufficient
for the subsistence of his family, to be determined by the fiscal or judge, taking
into account the members of his family dependent upon him for subsistence
[Sec. 2, RA 6033]
(2) A person who has no visible means of support or whose income does not
exceed P300.00 per month or whose income even in excess of P300.00 per
month is insufficient for the subsistence of his family [Sec. 2, RA 6035]
LAWS ON INDIGENTS OR LOW INCOME LITIGANTS:
(1) All courts shall give preference to the hearing and/or disposition of criminal
cases where an indigent is involved either as the offended party or accused [Sec.
1, RA 6033]
(2) Any indigent litigant may, upon motion, ask the Court for adequate travel
allowance to enable him and his indigent witnesses to attendant the hearing of a
criminal case commenced by his complaint or filed against him. The allowance
shall cover actual transportation expenses by the cheapest means from his place
of residence to the court and back. When the hearing of the case requires the
presence of the indigent litigant and/or his indigent witnesses in court the whole
day or for two or more consecutive days, allowances may, in the discretion of the
Court, also cover reasonable expenses for meal and lodging [Sec. 1, RA 6034].
(3) A stenographer who has attended a hearing before an investigating fiscal or
trial judge or hearing commissioner of any quasi-judicial body or administrative
tribunal and has officially taken notes of the proceeding thereof shall, upon
written request of an indigent or low income litigant, his counsel or duly
authorized representative in the case concerned, give within a reasonable period
to be determined by the fiscal, judge, commissioner or tribunal hearing the case,
a free certified transcript of notes take by him on the case [Sec. 1, RA 6035]

ii. Services as Counsel de Oficio

Rule 14.02. A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an
appointment as counsel de oficio 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.
Rules of Court provides:
(1) It is the duty of an attorney never to reject, for any consideration personal to
himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed [Sec. 20(h), Rule 138];
(2) A court may assign an attorney to render professional aid free of charge to
any party in a case, if upon investigation it appears that the party is destitute and
unable to employ an attorney, and that the services of counsel are necessary to
secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the party. It shall be the
duty of the attorney so assigned to render the required service, unless he is
excused therefrom by the court for sufficient cause shown [Sec. 31, Rule 138]
Counsel de oficio - one appointed or assigned by the court.
Counsel de parte- one employed or retained by the party himself.

WHO MAY BE APPOINTED AS COUNSEL DE OFICIO:

(1) A member of the bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience and
ability, can competently defend the accused;
(2) In localities without lawyers:
(a) Any person resident of the province and of good repute for probity and
ability [Sec. 7, Rule 116];
(b) A municipal judge or a lawyer employed in any branch, subdivision or
instrumentality of the government within the province [Sec. 1, PD 543].

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPOINTMENT OF A COUNSEL DE OFICIO:

(1) Gravity of the offense;
(2) Difficulty of the questions that may arise;
(3) Experience and ability of the appointee.

WHEN THE COURT MAY APPOINT A COUNSEL DE OFICIO (IN CRIMINAL

ACTIONS):
(1) Before arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel
and ask him if he desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend
himself in person or has employed counsel of his choice, the court must assign a
counsel de officio to defend him, [Sec. 6, Rule 116];
(2) It is the duty of the clerk of the trial court, upon filing of a notice of appeal, to
ascertain from the appellant, if confined in prison, whether he desires the
Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to appoint a
counsel de officio [Sec. 13, Rule 122];
(3) The clerk of the CA shall designate a counsel de oficio if it appears from the
case record that:
(a) The accused is confined in prison,
(b) Is without counsel de parte on appeal, or
(c) Has signed the notice of appeal himself, the clerk of Court of Appeals shall
designate a counsel de oficio.

An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request, be assigned a

counsel de officio within ten days from receipt of the notice to file brief and he
establishes his right thereto [Sec. 2, Rule 124]
ii. Valid Grounds for Refusal
Rule 14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent
client unless:
(a) He is in no 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.

A lawyer shall not decline an appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus

curiae, or a request from the IBP or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal
aid except for serious and sufficient cause.

Reason: One of the burdens of the privilege to practice law is to render, when so
required by the court, free legal services to an indigent litigant.
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 2.02, Canon 2]

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.
If a lawyer volunteers his services to a client, and therefore not entitled to
attorney’s fees, he is still bound to attend to a client’s case with all due diligence
and zeal. [Blanza v. Arcangel, A.C. No. 492 (1967)]

E.2. CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY TO CLIENTS

Canon 15. A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings
and transactions with his clients.
i. Confidentiality Rule
Purpose: To protect the client from possible breach of confidence as a result
of a consultation with a lawyer [Hadjula v. Madianda, A.C. No. 6711 (2007)]
Confidential communication information transmitted by voluntary act of
disclosure between attorney and client in confidence and by means which so
far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third person other
than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the
accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given [Mercado v. Vitriolo,
A.C. No. 5108 (2005)].

Communication may be transmitted by any form of agency, such as a

messenger, an interpreter or any other form of transmission. It is immaterial
whether the agent is the agent of the attorney, the client or both.
Question of privilege is determined by the court. The burden of proof is on the
party who asserts the privilege.
Canon 21 enjoins a lawyer to preserve the confidence and secrets of his client
even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.

ii. Privileged Communications

Rule 15.02. A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privileged communication

in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.

REQUISITES (LRCI)
(1) The person to whom information is given is a lawyer. However, if a person
is pretending to be a lawyer and client discloses confidential communications,
the attorney-client privilege applies;
(2) There is a legal relationship existing, except in cases of prospective
clients;
(3) Legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional capacity
with respect to communications relating to that purpose. The information is
not privileged if the advice is not within lawyer’s professional capacity;
(4) The client must intend the communication be confidential.

PERSONS ENTITLED TO PRIVILEGE

(1) The lawyer, client, and third persons who by reason of their work have
acquired information about the case being handled, including:
(a) Attorney’s secretary, stenographer and clerk;
(b) Interpreter, messengers, or agents transmitting communication;
(c) Accountant, scientist, physician, engineer who has been hired for effective
consultation;
(2) Assignee of the client’s interest as far as the communication affects the
realization of the assigned interest.

SCOPE OF THE PRIVILEGE

(1) Does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer’s
employment with the client [Palm v. Iledan, Jr., A.C. No. 8242 (2009)].
(2) Period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication
was made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed
in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future. If
the crime was committed in the past, the privilege applies. If it is still to be
committed, the privilege does not apply, because the communication between
a lawyer and his client must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a
lawful end to be privileged [People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 115439
(1996)].
(3) Limited only to communications which are legitimately and properly within
the scope of a lawful employment of a lawyer. It does not extend to those
made in contemplation of a crime or perpetration of a fraud. It is not within the
profession of a lawyer to advise a client as to how he may commit a crime.
[Genato v. Silapan, A.C. 4078 (2003)].
(4) Embraces not only oral or written statements but also actions, signs or
other means of communications. An attorney cannot, without the consent of
his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or
his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment; nor can an
attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent
of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which
has been acquired in such capacity [Sec. 24(b), Rule 130].

General rule: As a matter of public policy, a client’s identity should not be

shrouded in mystery. Thus, a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse
to divulge the name or identity of this client.
Exceptions:
(1) When a lawyer is accused by the client and he needs to reveal information
to defend himself;
(2) When the client discloses the intention to commit a crime or unlawful act
[Aguirre (2006)].
Ratio:
(1) The court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is
sought to be protected is flesh and blood.
(2) The privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has
been established. The attorney-client privilege does not attach unless there is
a client.
(3) The privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship.
(4) Due process considerations require that the opposing party should, as a
general rule, know his adversary.

Exceptions to exceptions: Client identity is privileged in the following

instances:
(1) Where a strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would
implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's
advice.
(2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is
privileged.
(3) Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's client
unless, by revealing the client’s name, the said name would furnish the only
link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual
of a crime, the client's name is privileged.
Information relating to the identity of the client may fall within the ambit of the
privilege when the client’s name itself has an independent significance, such
that disclosure would then reveal client confidences [Regala v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938 (1996)]

General rule: The protection given to the client is perpetual and does not
cease with the termination of the litigation, nor is it affected by the client’s
ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another, or by any other change
of relation between them. It even survives the death of the client [Bun Siong
Yao v. Aurelio, A.C. No. 7023 (2006)]

Exception: Some privileged communications lose their privileged character by

some supervening act done pursuant to the purpose of the communication
(e.g., a communication intended by the client to be sent to a third person
through his attorney loses confidential character once it reached the third
party).

EXAMPLES OF PRIVILEGED MATTERS

(1) Work product of lawyer (his effort, research and thought contained in his
file);
(2) Report of a physician, an accountant, an engineer or a technician, whose
services have been secured by a client as part of his communication to his
attorney or by the attorney to assist him render effective legal assistance to
his client;
(3) Records concerning an accident in which a party is involved;
(4) Consultation which has to do with the preparation of a client to take the
witness stand.

iii. Conflict of Interest

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 15.03. A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of
two or more opposing parties. [Hornilla v. Salunat, A.C. 5804 (2003)].

REQUISITES
(1) There are conflicting duties;
(2) The acceptance of the new relations invites or actually leads to
unfaithfulness or double-dealing to another client; or
(3) The attorney will be called upon to use against his first client any
knowledge acquired in the previous employment.

TESTS OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

(1) Whether 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 doubledealing in its performance.
(2) If the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an
act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he
represented him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to
use against the first client any knowledge acquired through their connection
[Frias v. Lozada, A.C. No. 6656 (2005)].
(3) 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.
(4) Whether 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 doubledealing in the performance thereof
[Pacana v. Pascual-Lopez, A.C. 8243 (2009)].
(5) Whether the lawyer will be asked to use against his former client any
confidential information acquired through their connection or previous
employment [Palm v. Iledan, Jr., A.C. 8242 (2009)]
Note: The test to determine whether there is a conflict of interest in the
representation is probability, not certainty of conflict.

EFFECTS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Representing adverse interest may result in:
(1) Disqualification as counsel in the new case;
(2) If prejudicial to interests of latter client, setting aside of a judgment;
(3) Administrative and criminal (for betrayal of trust) liability;
(4) Forfeiture of attorney’s fees.
General rule: A lawyer may not represent two opposing parties at any point in
time.
A lawyer need not be the counsel-of-record of either party. It is enough that
the counsel had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of one party.
Exception: When the parties agree, and for amicable settlement [Agpalo
(2004)]
At a certain stage of the controversy, before it reaches the court, a lawyer
may represent conflicting interests with the consent of the parties [Dee v. CA,
G.R. No. 77439 (1989)]

Rule 15.04. A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as
mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
An attorney’s knowledge of the law and his reputation for fidelity may make it
easy for the disputants to settle their differences amicably. However, he shall
not act as counsel for any of them. [Agpalo (2004)]
iv. Candid and Honest Advice to Clients
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.
A lawyer is bound to give candid and honest opinion on the merit or lack of
merit of client’s case, neither overstating nor understating the prospect of the
case. He should also give an honest opinion as to the probable results of the
case [Agpalo (2004)]
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the
pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is
good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay [Sec. 3, Rule
7]
v. Not to Claim Influence

Rule 15.06. A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any
public official, tribunal or legislative body.
Ratio: To protect against influence peddling. [Agpalo (2004)].
vi. Compliance with Laws
Rule 15.07. A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws
and principles of fairness.
It is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings
only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be
honestly debatable under the law [Sec. 20(c), Rule 138].
A lawyer is required to represent his client within the bounds of law. He is
enjoined to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives
of his client and not to allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the
case.
A lawyer appears in court in representation of his client not only as an
advocate but also as an officer of the court. To permit lawyers to resort to
unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed rights of their clients
is to defeat the administration of justice [Agpalo (2004)]
vii. Concurrent Practice of Another Profession

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.

Exercise of dual profession is not prohibited but a lawyer must make it clear
when he is acting as a lawyer or when he is acting in another capacity,
especially in occupations related to the practice of law [In re: Rothman, 12
N.J. 528 (1953)]

Ratio: Certain ethical considerations may be operative in one profession and

not in the other [Agpalo (2004)]
A lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction
must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. Business
transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and
discouraged by policy of law because by virtue of a lawyer’s office, he is an
easy position to take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client.
Thus, there is no presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing in
favor of lawyers [Nakpil v. Valdez, A.C. No. 2040 (1998)]

E.3. CLIENT’S MONEYS AND PROPERTIES

Canon 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client
that may come into his possession.
Lawyers cannot acquire or purchase, even at a public or judicial auction,
either in person or through the mediation of another, the property and rights
which may be the object of any litigation in which they take part by virtue of
their profession [Art. 1491(5), Civil Code].
Ratio: The prohibition is based on the existing relation of trust or the lawyer’s
peculiar control over the property.

REQUISITES (RLCP)
(1) There is an attorney-client relationship;
(2) The property or interest of the client is in litigation;
(3) The attorney takes part as counsel in the case;
(4) The attorney purchases or acquires the property or right, by himself or
through another, during the pendency of litigation [Laig v. CA, G.R. No. L-
26882 (1978)]

Any scheme which has the effect of circumventing the law comes within the
prohibition [Agpalo (2004)].

INSTANCES WHEN PROHIBITION IN CIVIL CODE ART. 1491 APPLIES:

(1) Even if the purchase or lease of the property in litigation is in favor of a
partnership, of which counsel is a partner [Mananquil v. Villegas, A.C. No.
2430 (1990)]
(2) If the purchase is made by the wife of the attorney [In re: Calderon, G.R.
No. L2409 (1907)]
(3) Mortgage of property in litigation to the lawyer.
In this case, acquisition is merely postponed until foreclosure but effect is the
same. It also includes assignment of property [Ordonio v. Eduarte, A.M. No.
3216, (1992)].
The purchase by a lawyer of the property in litigation from his client is void
and could produce no legal effect [Article 1409(7), Civil Code]
INSTANCES WHEN PROHIBITION IN ART. 1491 DOES NOT APPLY:
(1) When the attorney is not a counsel in the case involving the same property
at the time of acquisition;
(2) When purchaser is a corporation, even if the attorney was an officer
[Tuason v. Tuason, G.R. No. L-3404 (1951)]
(3) When sale takes place after termination of litigation, except if there was
fraud or use/abuse of confidential information or where lawyer exercised
undue influence;
(4) Where property in question is stipulated as part of attorney’s fees,
provided that, the same is contingent upon the favorable outcome of litigation
and, provided further, that the fee must be reasonable.
i. Fiduciary Relationship

Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.

Ratio: The lawyer merely holds said money or property in trust. When a
lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose
(such as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses),
he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does
not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to
the client [Belleza v. Macasa, A.C. No. 7815 (2009)]
The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on money in his hands would not
relieve him from the duty of promptly accounting for the funds received [Daroy
v. Legaspi, A.C. No. 936 (1975)]
ii. Commingling of Funds
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.
A lawyer should not commingle a client’s money with that of other clients and
with his private funds, nor use the client’s money for his personal purposes
without the client’s consent. [Daroy v. Legaspi, A.C. No. 936 (1975)]
iii. Delivery of Funds
Rule 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may
apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client.
He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions
he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court. When an
attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has
been demanded, he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the
Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings
under this Sec. shall not be a bar to criminal prosecution [Sec. 25, Rule
138]

Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients

is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them [Busiños v.
Ricafort, A.C. No. 4349 (1997)]
The failure of an attorney to return the client’s money upon demand gives rise
to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the
prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the client [Jinon v.
Jiz, A.C. No. 9615 (2013)]
However, an attorney has a lien upon the funds documents and papers of his
client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same
until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid and may apply such
funds to the satisfaction thereof [Sec. 37, Rule 138]
iv. Borrowing or Lending ]
Rule 16.04. A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s
interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent
advice.

Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except when, in the interest of
justice, he has to necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the
client.

A LAWYER IS PROHIBITED FROM BORROWING MONEY FROM HIS

CLIENT

Ratio: The canon presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s
ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on her obligation [Frias v.
Lozada, A.C. No. 6656 (2005)]

The profession demands of an attorney an absolute abdication of every

personal advantage conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly, with the
interest of his client [Barnachea v. Quiocho, A.C. No. 5925 (2003)]

A LAWYER IS PROHIBITED FROM LENDING MONEY TO HIS CLIENT

Ratio: The canon intends to assure the lawyer’s independent professional

judgment, for if the lawyer acquires a financial interest in the outcome of the
case, the free exercise of his judgment may be adversely affected.
Exception: When, in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary
expenses in a legal matter he is handling.

E.4. FIDELITY TO CLIENT’S CAUSE

Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

The failure to exercise due diligence and the abandonment of a client’s cause
make such a lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client has reposed on him
[Cantilller v. Potenciano, A.C. No. 3195 (1989)]
Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, no fear or judicial disfavor
or public unpopularity should restrain him from the full discharge of his duty
[Santiago v. Fojas, A.M. No. 4103 (1995)]

By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real
estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was
alienable, the lawyer deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client.
He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by
complainant. Instead, he deceived complainant and misled him into parting
with P400,000 for services that were both illegal and unprofessional
[Stemmerik v. Mas, A.C. No. 8010 (2009)]

E.5. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Canon 18. A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
DILIGENCE REQUIRED
A lawyer must exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care
and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to
do, as any other member of the bar similarly situated commonly possesses
and exercises. He is not, however, bound to exercise extraordinary diligence
[Pajarillo v. WCC, G.R. No. L-42927 (1980)]
A client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense
authorized by law, and is expected to rely on the lawyer to assert every such
remedy or defense [Garcia v. Bala, A.C. No. 5309 (2005)]
i. Adequate Preparation
Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation.

A lawyer should safeguard his client’s rights and interests by thorough study
and preparation, mastering applicable law and facts involved in a case, and
keeping constantly abreast of the latest jurisprudence and developments in all
branches of the law [Agpalo (2004)]
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his cases. This is
the reason why a practicing lawyer should accept only so many cases he can
handle. [Legarda v. CA, G.R. No. 94457 (1991)]
ii. Negligence If by reason of the lawyer’s negligence, actual loss has
been caused to his client, the latter has a cause of action against him
for damages. [Callanta]
General rule: A client is bound by the attorney’s conduct, negligence and
mistake in handling the case or in management of litigation and in procedural
technique, and he cannot be heard to complain that result might have been
different had his lawyer proceeded differently.
Exceptions: He is not so bound where the ignorance, incompetence or
inexperience of lawyer is so great and error so serious that the client, who has
good cause, is prejudiced and denied a day in court [People v. Manzanilla,
G.R. No. L-17436 (1922); Alarcon v. CA,
G.R. No. 126802 (2000)] EXAMPLES OF LAWYER’S NEGLIGENCE:
1) Failure of counsel to ask for additional time to answer a complaint resulting
in a default judgment against his client (Mapua v. Mendoza, G.R. L-19295
(1923)];
2) Failure to bring suit immediately, as when it was filed when the defendant
had already become insolvent and recovery could no longer be had;
3) Failure to ascertain date of receipt from post office of notice of decision
resulting in the non-perfection of the appellant’s appeal [Joven-De Jesus v.
PNB, G.R. No. L-19299 (1964)]
4) Failure to file briefs within the reglementary period [People v. Cawili, G.R.
No. L-30543, (1970)];
5) Failure to attend a trial without filing a motion for postponement or without
requesting either of his two partners in the law office to take his place and
appear for the defendants [Gaerlan v. Bernal, G.R. No. L-4039 (1952)];
6) Failure to appear at pre-trial [Agravante v. Patriarca, G.R. No. L-48324
(1990)];
7) Failure of counsel to notify clients of the scheduled trial which prevented
the latter to look for another lawyer to represent them while counsel was in the
hospital [Ventura v. Santos, 59 Phil. 123 (1993)];
8) Failure to appear simply because the client did not go to counsel’s office on
the date of the trial as was agreed upon (Alcoriza v. Lumakang, A.M. No. 249
(1978)];
9) Failure to pay the appellate docket fee after receiving the amount for the
purpose [Capulong v. Alino, A.M. No. 381 (1968)]

iii. Collaborating Counsel

WHEN A LAWYER ACCEPTS A CASE, WHETHER FOR A FEE OR NOT,

HIS ACCEPTANCE IS AN IMPLIED REPRESENTATION:
1) That he possesses the requisite degree of academic learning, skill and
ability necessary in the practice of his profession;
2) That he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the
litigation entrusted to him;
3) That he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care
and skill demanded of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the client’s
interests and take all steps or do all acts necessary thereof [Uy v. Tansinsin,
A.C. 8252 (2009)]; and
4) That he will take steps as will adequately safeguard his client’s interests
[Islas v. Platon, G.R. No. L-23183 (1924)]
Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or
should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such
service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel
a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
A lawyer should not accept an undertaking in a specific area of law which he
knows or should know he is not qualified to enter. [Agpalo (2004)]

iv. Duty to Apprise Client Rule

18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable period of time to client’s request for
information.
It was unnecessary to have the clients wait, and hope, for six long years on
their pension claims. Upon their refusal to cooperate, the lawyer should have
forthwith terminated their professional relationship instead of keeping them
hanging indefinitely. [Blanza v. Arcangel, A.C. No. 492 (1967)]

CLIENT SHOULD MAKE PROPER INQUIRIES

The client should not, however, sit idly by. It is also his duty to make proper
inquiries from his counsel concerning his case, in keeping with that standard
of care which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon his important business.

E.6. REPRESENTATION WITH ZEAL WITHIN LEGAL BOUNDS

Canon 19. A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of
the law. A lawyer should present every remedy or defense authorized by law
in support of his client’s cause regardless of his personal views. [Legarda v.
CA, G.R. No. 94457 (1991)]

i. Use of Fair and Honest Means

Rule 19.01. A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
 threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper
advantage in any case or proceeding.

It is the duty of an attorney to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the

causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and
honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice
or false statement of fact or law [Sec. 20(d), Rule 138]

A lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal
case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a
leverage to compel adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against
the lawyer’s client. [Pena v. Aparicio, A.C. No. 7298 (2007)]
ii. Client’s Fraud
Rule 19.02. A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the
course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal,
shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he
shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules
of Court.

This rule merely requires the lawyer to terminate his relationship with the
client in the event the latter fails or refuses to rectify the fraud. [Agpalo (2004)]

iii. Procedure in Handling The Case

Rule 19.03. A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure on
handling the case. Within client’s control Within counsel’s control
The cause of action, the claim or demand sued upon, and the subject matter of
the litigation are all within the exclusive control of a client. An attorney may not
impair, compromise, settle, surrender, or destroy them without his client's
consent. All the proceedings in court to enforce the remedy, to bring the claim,
demand, cause of action, or subject matter of the suit to hearing, trial,
determination, judgment, and execution, are within the exclusive control of the
attorney [Belandres v. Lopez Sugar Central Mill, G.R. No. L-6869 (1955)].
E.7. ATTORNEY’S FEES

Canon 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. An attorney is
entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services with a view to:
(1) The importance of the subject matter of the controversy;
(2) The extent of the services rendered; and
(3) The professional standing of the attorney.
No court shall be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the
proper compensation but may disregard such testimony and base its conclusion
on its own professional knowledge. A written contract for services shall control
the amount to be paid therefore unless found by the court to be unconscionable
or unreasonable.
[Sec. 24, Rule 138, RoC]
The mere fact that an agreement had been reached between attorney and client
fixing the amount of the attorney’s fees, does not insulate such agreement from
review and modification by the Court where the fees clearly appear to be
excessive or unreasonable [Tanhueco v. De Dumo, A.M. No. 1437 (1989)]

WHEN A LAWYER CANNOT RECOVER THE FULL AMOUNT STIPULATED IN

THE CONTRACT:
(1) When the services were not performed, and if the lawyer withdrew before the
case was finished, he will be allowed only reasonable fees;
(2) When there is justified dismissal of an attorney, the contract will be nullified
and payment will be on quantum meruit basis;
(3) When the stipulated fees are unconscionable or unreasonable;
(4) When the stipulated fees are in excess of what is expressly provided by law;
(5) When the lawyer is guilty of fraud or bad faith in the manner of his
employment;
(6) When the counsel’s services are worthless because of negligence;
(7) When the contract is contrary to laws, morals, and good policies.
WHEN THERE IS NO EXPRESS CONTRACT
In the absence of an express contract, payment of attorney’s fees may be
justified by virtue of the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do and you give)
which is based on the principle that “no one shall enrich himself at the expense of
another” [Corpuz v. CA, G.R. No. L-40424 (1980)]

NOTE: RA 5185. Sec. 6. Prohibition Against Practice.

A member of the Provincial Board or City or Municipal Council shall not appear
as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein the province, city or
municipality, as the case may be, is the adverse party: Provided, however, That
no member of the Provincial Board shall so appear except in behalf of his
province in any civil case wherein any city in the province is the adverse party
whose voters are en-franchised to vote for provincial officials, nor shall such
member of the Provincial Board or City or Municipal Council appear as counsel
for the accused in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of said
province, city or municipality is accused of an offense committed in relation to the
latter's office, nor shall he collect any fee for his appearance in any administrative
proceedings before provincial, city or municipal agencies of the province, city or
municipality, as the case may be, of which he is an elected official.The provisions
of this Sec. shall likewise apply to provincial governors and city and municipal
mayors.

Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his
fees:
(a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
(b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
(d) The skill demanded;
(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the
proffered case;
(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the
IBP chapter to which he belongs;
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client
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.

MANNER BY WHICH ATTORNEYS MAY BE PAID

(1) A fixed or absolute fee which is payable regardless of the result of the case;
(2) A contingent fee that is conditioned upon the securing of a favorable
judgment and recovery of money or property and the amount of which may be on
a percentage basis;
(3) A fixed fee payable per appearance;
(4) A fixed fee computed by the number of hours spent;
(5) A fixed fee based on a piece of work;
(6) A combination of any of the above stipulated fees.
CONTINGENT FEE- the lawyer gets paid only if the legal activity is successful.
CHAMPERTOUS CONTRACT- it is an agreement whereby an attorney agrees to
pay off expenses of the proceedings to enforce the client’s rights. This is against
public policy and violation of the fiduciary relationship of the lawyer and client. It
is also violative of the CPR which provides that a lawyer may not properly agree
with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation.

QUANTUM MERUIT Means “as much as a lawyer deserves.”

Essential requisite: Acceptance of the benefits by one sought to be charged for

services rendered under circumstances as reasonably to notify him that lawyer
expects compensation.
WHEN AUTHORIZED:
(1) The agreement as to counsel fees is invalid for some reason other than the
illegality of the object of performance;
(2) There is no express contract for attorney’s fees agreed upon between the
lawyer and the client;
(3) When although there is a formal contract of attorney’s fees, the stipulated
fees are found unconscionable or unreasonable by the court;
(4) When the contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely formal matters or
defects of execution; (5) When the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to
finish the case to its conclusion;
(6) When lawyer and client disregard the contract of attorney’s fees;
(7) When there is a contract but no stipulation as to attorney’s fees.

QUANTUM MERUIT GUIDELINES

(1) Time spent and extent of the services rendered. A lawyer is justified in fixing
higher fees when the case is so complicated and requires more time and efforts
to finish it.
(2) Importance of subject matter. The more important the subject matter or the
bigger value of the interest or property in litigation, the higher is the attorney’s
fee.
(3) Novelty and difficulty of questions involved. When the questions in a case are
novel and difficult, greater efforts, deeper study, and research are bound to burn
the lawyer’s time and stamina considering that there are no local precedents to
rely upon.
(4) Skill demanded of the lawyer. The totality of the lawyer’s experience provides
him the skill and competence admired in lawyers.

A determination of all these factors would indispensably require nothing less than
a full-blown trial where private respondent can adduce evidence to establish its
right to lawful attorney's fees and for petitioner to oppose or refute the same
[Metrobank v. CA, G.R. No. 86100 (1990)]
The above rules apply in the case of a counsel de parte. A counsel de oficio may
not demand from the accused attorney’s fees even if he wins the case. However,
subject to availability of funds, the court may, in its discretion, order an attorney
employed as counsel de oficio to be compensated in such sum as the court may
fix.
The criteria in fixing the amount are still:
(1) The importance of the subject matter of the controversy;
(2) The extent of the services rendered; and
(3) The professional standing of the attorney.
i. Acceptance Fees
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and
gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. [Emiliano Court Townhouses
Homeowners Association v. Dioneda, A.C. No. 5162 (2003)]
Failure to render the legal services agreed upon, despite receipt of an
acceptance fee, is a clear violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
[Macarulay v. Seriña, A.C. No. 6591 (2005)]
It is the duty of an attorney to accept no compensation in connection with his
client’s business except from him or with his knowledge and approval [Sec.
20(e), Rule 138]
ii. Contingency Fee Arrangements
A distinction should be made between a champertous contract and a contingent
contract with respect to attorney’s fees:
Champertous Contract
Contingent Contract
A champertous contract is one where the lawyer stipulates with his client that he
will bear all the expenses for the prosecution of the case, the recovery of things
or property being claimed, and the latter pays only upon successful litigation.
This contract is void for being against public policy
A contingent contract is an agreement in which the lawyer’s fee, usually a fixed
percentage of what may be recovered in the action, is made to depend upon the
success in the effort to enforce or defend the client’s right.
The lawyer does not undertake to shoulder the expenses of litigation. It is a valid
agreement.
Rule 20.02. A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with the consent of the client, be
entitled to a division of fees in proportion to work performed and responsibility
assumed.
The referral of a client by a lawyer to another lawyer does not entitle the former
to a commission or to a portion of the attorney’s fees. It is only when, in addition
to the referral, he performs legal service or assumes responsibility in the case
that he will be entitled to a fee [Agpalo (2004)]
Rule 20.03. A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the
client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding
allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his professional
employment from anyone other than the client.

Ratio: The rule is designed to secure the lawyer’s fidelity to the client’s cause and
to prevent that situation in which receipt by him of a rebate or commission from
another in connection with the client’s cause may interfere with the full discharge
of his duty to his client.

iv. Attorney’s Liens

RETAINING LIEN
An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client
which have lawfully come into his possession. Thus:
(1) He may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been
paid;
(2) May apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. [Sec. 37, Rule 138]

REQUISITES
(1) Attorney-client relationship;
(2) Lawful possession by lawyer of the client’s funds, documents and papers in
his professional capacity; and
(3) Unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees or disbursements.
CHARGING LIEN
He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment
of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has
secured in a litigation of his client.
This lien exists from and after the time when he shall have caused:
(1) A statement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the
court rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution; and
(2) Written notice thereof to be delivered to his client and to the adverse party.
From then on, he shall have the same right and power over such judgments and
executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of
his just fees and disbursements
[Sec. 37, Rule 138] REQUISITES
(1) Attorney-client relationship;
(2) The attorney has rendered services;
(3) A money judgment favorable to the client has been secured in the action; and
(4) The attorney has a claim for attorney’s fees or advances statement of his
claim has been recorded in the case with notice served upon the client and
adverse party.
iv. Fees and Controversies with Clients
Rule 20.04. A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice or fraud.
JUDICIAL ACTIONS TO RECOVER ATTORNEY’S FEES:
(1) An appropriate motion or petition as an incident in the main action where
he rendered legal services;
(2) (2) A separate civil action for collection of attorney’s fees.
Only when the circumstances imperatively require should a lawyer resort to
lawsuit to enforce payment of fees.
This is but a logical consequence of the legal profession not primarily being for
economic compensation. [Agpalo (2004)
Ordinary concept
An attorney’s fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer for the legal
services he has rendered to a client. Its basis of this compensation is the fact of
employment by the client

Extraordinary concept
An attorney’s fee is an indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by
the losing party to the prevailing party in litigation. The basis of this is any of the
cases authorized by law and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client –
unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional
compensation or as part thereof [Traders Royal Bank Employees
UnionIndependent v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120592 (1997)].

E.9. PRESERVATION OF CLIENT’S CONFIDENCES

Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even
after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
Ratio:
(1) Unless the client knows that his attorney cannot be compelled to reveal what
is told to him, he will suppress what he thinks to be unfavorable and the advice
which follows will be useless if not misleading;
(2) To encourage a client to make full disclosure to his attorney and to place
unrestricted confidence in him in matters affecting his rights or obligations.
It is the duty of an attorney to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril
to himself to preserve, the secrets of his client and to accept no compensation in
connection with his client’s business except from him or with his knowledge and
approval.

[Sec. 20(e), Rule 138] IMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1) Upon any lawyer who, by any malicious breach of professional duty or of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance, reveals any of the secrets of the latter
learned by him in his professional capacity.
2) Upon a lawyer who, having undertaken the defense of a client or having
received confidential information from said client in a case, undertakes the
defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first
client. [Art. 209, RPC]
i. Prohibited Disclosures and Use
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.
The work and product of a lawyer, such as his effort, research, and thought, and
the records of his client, contained in his files are privileged matters. Neither the
lawyer nor, after his death, his heir or legal representative may properly disclose
the contents of such file cabinet without client’s consent.
Rule 21.05. A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent
those whose services are utilized by him from disclosing or using confidences or
secrets of the client. Professional employment of a law firm is equivalent to
retainer of the members thereof even though only one partner is consulted.
When one partner tells another about the details of the case, it is not considered
as disclosure to third persons because members of a law firm are considered as
one entity. The client’s secrets which clerical aids of lawyers learn of in the
performance of their services are covered by privileged communication. It is the
duty of lawyer to ensure that this is being followed (e.g., execution of
confidentiality agreements).
Ratio: The prohibition against a lawyer from divulging the confidences and
secrets of his clients will become futile exercise if his clerical aids are given
liberty to do what is prohibited of the lawyer.
Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client’s affairs
even with members of his family. A lawyer must also preserve the confidences
and secrets of his clients outside the law office, including his home. He should
avoid committing calculated indiscretion, that is, accidental revelation of secrets
obtained in his professional employment.

Rule 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a
particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
Read in relation to: 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 14.03. A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent
client unless: (b) He labors under a conflict of interest between him and the
prospective client or between a present client and the prospective client.

THE PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RULE APPLIES EVEN TO

PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS
The disclosure and the lawyer’s opinion thereon create an attorney-client
relationship, even though the lawyer does not eventually accept the employment
or the prospective client did not thereafter actually engage the lawyer.
By the consultation, the lawyer already learned of the secrets of prospective
client. This rule, of course, is subject to exception of representation of conflicting
interests.

ii. Disclosure,
When Allowed 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.
A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates
thereof unless prohibited by the client.
E.9. WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES Canon 22. A lawyer shall withdraw his
services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.
CAUSES OF TERMINATION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
(1) Withdrawal of the lawyer;
(2) Death of the lawyer;
(3) Disbarment or suspension of the lawyer from the practice of law;
(4) Declaration of presumptive death of the lawyer;
(5) Conviction of a crime and imprisonment of the lawyer;
(6) Discharge or dismissal of the lawyer by the client;
(7) Appointment or election of a lawyer to a government position which prohibits
private practice of law;
(8) Death of the client;
(9) Intervening incapacity or incompetence of the client during pendency of case;
(10)Full termination of the case.
General rule:
The client has the right to discharge his attorney at any time with or without just
cause or even against his consent.
Exceptions:
(1) The client cannot deprive his counsel of right to be paid services if the
dismissal is without cause.
(2) The client cannot discharge his counsel as an excuse to secure repeated
extensions of time.
(3) Notice of discharge is required for both the court and the adverse party.

Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct 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 cocounsel 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.
A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding:
(1) With the written consent of his client filed in court and copy thereof served
upon the adverse party; or
(2) Without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and
attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire.
[Sec. 26, Rule 138] General rule:
The withdrawal in writing, with the client’s conformity, does not require the
approval of the court to be effective.
Exception: If no new counsel has entered his appearance, the court may, in order
to prevent a denial of a party’s right to the assistance of counsel require that the
lawyer’s withdrawal be held in abeyance until another lawyer shall have
appeared for the party [Villasis v. CA, G.R. No. L-34369 (1974)]
Although a lawyer may withdraw his services when the client deliberately fails to
pay the fees for the services, withdrawal is unjustified if client did not deliberately
fail to pay [Montano v. IBP, A.C. No. 4215 (2001)]

Rule 22.02. A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retaining

lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled,
and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter,
including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.
REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
(1) The filing of a written application for substitution;
(2) The client’s written consent;
(3) The consent of the substituted lawyer if such consent can be obtained; and, in
case such written consent cannot be procured;
(4) A proof of service of notice of such motion on the attorney to be substituted in
the manner required by the Rules [Sec. 26, Rule 138]
At the discretion of the court, a lawyer, who has been dismissed by a client, is
allowed to intervene in a case in order to protect the client’s rights [Obando v.
Figueras, G.R. No. 134854 (2000)

Disqualifications of Justices and Judges [Rule 137]

NOTE: Asked 3 times in the Bar; 1994, 1991, 2008. [Lex Pareto (2014 ed)]

A. COMPULSORY DISQUALIFICATION
No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case, without the written consent of all
parties in interest and entered upon the record, in which:
(1) He, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise; or
(2) He is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity,
or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil
law;
(3) He has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel; or
(4) He has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject
of review.

[Sec. 1, 1st par., Rule 137]

REASON FOR THE RULE The rule on compulsory disqualification of a judge to
hear a case rests on the salutary principle that no judge should preside in a case
in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. A judge
has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner
completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity.
The law conclusively presumes that a judge cannot objectively or impartially sit in
such a case and, for that reason, prohibits him and strikes at his authority to hear
and decide it, in the absence of written consent of all parties concerned. The
purpose is to preserve the people's faith and confidence in the courts' justice
[Garcia v. De La Peña (1994)]
The relationship of the judge with one of the parties may color the facts and
distort the law to the prejudice of a just decision. Where this is probable or even
only possible, due process demands that the judge inhibit himself, if only out of a
sense of delicadeza [Javier v. Comelec (1996)].

B. VOLUNTARY DISQUALIFICATION
Rule 137. Sec. 1., 2nd par. A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those
mentioned.

REASON FOR THE RULE A judge must maintain and preserve the trust and
faith of the parties-litigants. He must hold himself above reproach and suspicion.
At the very first sign of lack of faith and trust to his actions, whether well-
grounded or not, the judge has no other alternative but inhibit himself from the
case.
A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation, but when
circumstances appear that will induce doubt to his honest actuations and probity
in favor of either party, or incite such state of mind, he should conduct a careful
self-examination. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the people's
faith in the courts of justice is not impaired. The better course for the judge under
such circumstances is to disqualify himself. That way, he avoids being
misunderstood, his reputation for probity and objectivity is preserved [Bautista v.
Rebueno (1978)].
Intimacy or friendship between a judge and an attorney of record of one of the
parties to a suit is no ground for disqualification. That one of the counsels in a
case was a classmate of the trial judge is not a legal ground for the
disqualification of the said judge.
To allow it would unnecessarily burden other trial judges to whom the case would
be transferred. But if the relationship between the judge and an attorney for a
party is such that there would be a natural inclination to prejudice the case, the
judge should be disqualified in order to guaranty a fair trial [Query of Executive
Judge Estrada (1987)].