LAST MINUTE LECTURE NOTES IN LEGAL ETHICS

Are law students covered by the standards of professional conduct governing lawyers? Can they appear without
the supervision of a lawyer?

Section 4, Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court (Law Student Practice Rule) provides: Standards of conduct and
supervision. — The law student shall comply with the standards of professional conduct governing members of the
Bar. Failure of an attorney to provide adequate supervision of student practice may be a ground for disciplinary
action. (Circular No. 19, dated December 19, 1986).

The matter of allowing a law student to appear before the court unaccompanied by a supervising lawyer cannot be
left to the discretion of the presiding judge. The rule clearly states that the appearance of the law student shall be
under the direct control and supervision of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by law
schools. The rule must be strictly construed because public policy demands that legal work should be entrusted only
to those who possess tested qualifications, are sworn to observe the rules and ethics of the legal profession and
subject to judicial disciplinary control. 4 We said in Bulacan v. Torcino: 5

Court procedures are often technical and may prove like snares to the ignorant or the unwary. In the past,
our law has allowed non-lawyers to appear for party litigants in places where duly authorized members of
the bar are not available (U.S. vs. Bacansas, 6 Phil. 539). For relatively simple litigation before municipal
courts, the Rules still allow a more educated or capable person in behalf of a litigant who cannot get a
lawyer. But for the protection of the parties and in the interest of justice, the requirement for appearances
in regional trial courts and higher courts is more stringent.

The Law Student Practice Rule is only an exception to the rule. Hence, the presiding judge should see to it that the
law student appearing before the court is properly guided and supervised by a member of the bar.

The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where the issues and procedure
are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of
a lawyer. Section 34 Rule 138 provides;

Section 34. By whom litigation is conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace, a party may conduct
his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid
of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and
his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party without the supervision of
a member of the bar. BAR MATTER NO. 730 June 13, 1997

What is an attorney-in-fact?

An agent whose authority is strictly limited by the instrument appointing him, though he may do things not
mentioned in his appointment necessary to the performance of the duties specifically required of him by the power
of attorney appointing him, such authority being necessarily implied. He is not necessarily a lawyer.

What is a counsel de officio?

A counsel, appointed or assigned by the court, from among members of the Bar in good standing who, by reason of
their experience and ability, may adequately defend the accused.

Page 1 of 7
 LAST MINUTE LECTURE NOTES IN LEGAL ETHICS

Who may be appointed counsel de officio?

Section 7. Appointment of counsel de oficio. — The court, considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of
the questions that may arise, shall appoint as counsel de oficio only such members of the bar in good standing who,
by reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend the accused. But in localities where such members
of the bar are not available, the court may appoint any person, resident of the province and of good repute for
probity and ability, to defend the accused. (7a)
What is the mandate of the Office of the Solicitor General?

Sec. 2 of Executive Order No. 300 (July 26, 1987) states: The Office of the Solicitor General shall be headed by the
Solicitor General, who is the principal law Officer and legal defender of the Government. He shall have the authority
and responsibility for the exercise of the Office's mandate and for the discharge of its duties and functions, and shall
have supervision and control over the Office of its constituent units. The Solicitor General, who shall be appointed
by the President, shall have the same qualifications for appointment, rank, prerogatives, and privileges as those of
the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals.

Important terms.

Attorney-at-Law is an officer of courts of justice who is employed by a party in a cause to manage the same for him
(Glade Springs Bank vs. McEwen, SE 53).
Lawyer is one skilled in the law (7 C.J.S. 703). Lawyer, attorney-at-law and attorney are synonymous terms (People
vs. Taylor, 138 P. 762).

Attorney is a man set apart by the law to expound to all persons who seek him the laws of the land relating to the
high interests of life, liberty and property (Planters Bank vs. Hornberger, 44 Tenn (4 Cold., 531). In English law, the
word attorney signifies in its widest sense, any substitute or agent appointed to act in turn, stead or place of another
(In re Ricker, 24 LRA 740). It is a derivative of the verb attorn which means to transfer or to turn over to another
(Eichelberger vs. Siffor, 27 Ms. 320, 330).

Counsel is an advocate, a counselor or pleader (7 C.J.S. 102). Advocate is a person learned in the law and duly
admitted to practice (7 C.J.S. 102).

Barrister; Solicitor; Proctor.—In England, a barrister is a person entitled to practice as an advocate or counsel in
superior courts; a solicitor is a person prosecuting or defending suits in courts of chancery; a proctor is an attorney
in the admiralty and ecclesiastical courts (7 C.J.S. 103).

Attorney de Oficio is an attorney assigned by a superior court to defend, assist, represent, or otherwise render
professional services to destitute litigants without any remuneration (Rule 138, Sec. 32, Rules of Court).
Attorney ad hoc; curator ad hoc indicates the person named and appointed by the court to defend such absentee in
a suit in which the appointment is made (Bienvenu vs. Fattor's & Traders, Inc. Co. 33 La. Ann. 209, 212).

Attorney of record is an attorney whose name is entered on the records of the action or suit as the attorney of a
designated party thereto (Delaney vs. Husband, 45 A. 265).

Bar originally meant the partition or division separating the court from the lawyers, the litigants and the general
public. Now the term refers to the legal profession (Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 10).

Bench originally meant the seat of judges. Now it refers to the judiciary (supra).

Client is one who seeks the advice of an attorney or retains him to prosecute or defend a suit (7 C. J.S. 702). The
Ethical Conduct of a Lawyer, 241 SCRA 128, February 6, 1995

Page 2 of 7
 LAST MINUTE LECTURE NOTES IN LEGAL ETHICS

What is the required quantum of proof in disbarment cases?

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and the case must be established by
clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. In this instance however, in the face of the testimonies taken and the
evidence gathered during the investigation made by the Solicitor General, it is clear that the complainant has failed
to prove her allegations (Camus vs. Diaz,170 SCRA 96).

Service to brother/sister lawyers

The reasonable request of brother lawyers and of their widows or orphans, without ample means, should receive
special and kindly consideration of lawyers. Even if they are with ample means, mere casual or slight services should
be rendered without charge but if the services go beyond this, an attorney may be charged as other clients. In the
proper cases, the charges to fellow attorneys should be generally less than charges to other clients (Canons of
Professional Ethics, 12).

Why should lawyers join bar associations?

Lawyers should join bar associations. An association is a good vehicle for intensifying the spirit of camaraderie among
them. It keeps lawyers in close and constant touch with the members of their profession and the growth of the law.
It enhances cooperation towards a common goal. A bar association solidifies the influence of lawyers in the
community, strengthening the same. Members of a bar association are in better position to work for legal reforms,
institute measures to raise the standard of the legal profession, and create public opinion on national issues. A lawyer
should regard highly his privilege in assisting the formation of sound public opinion. The Ethical Conduct of a Lawyer,
241 SCRA 128, February 6, 1995 citing Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 53.

What are the sources of legal ethics?

A.Philippine Constitution

Article VIII, Section 5, (5) provides:

"Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court."

B.Rules of Court

Pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by the Constitution, the Supreme Court adopted Rules 138
and 139, entitled "Attorneys and Admission to the Bar" and "Disbarment or Suspension of Attorneys,"
respectively.

C.Statutes

Article 1491 (5) of the New Civil Code (R.A. 386) and Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code, are
statutory provisions dealing with lawyers.
As to attorney's fees the following statutory provisions are relevant: Article 2208, New Civil Code; R.A.
136, Sec. 4; R.A. 145, Sec. 1; R.A. 65; Act 2655, Sec. 6-B, and R.A. 636; R.A. 42, 972, 1080,1166,1612,
857, 1277 and 1198.

D.Jurisprudence

Page 3 of 7
 LAST MINUTE LECTURE NOTES IN LEGAL ETHICS

Pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals clarifying principles on how lawyers
shall conduct themselves in their profession as well as in private life, also constitute a source of the
rules of legal ethics.
Decisions of various courts of the United States whose system with respect to the legal profession is
identical to the Philippine System, likewise constitute a source of our rules on legal ethics (Martin,
Legal and Judicial Ethics).

E.Canons of Professional Ethics

First adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908, it has been adopted as its own by the Philippine
Bar Association in 1917 and again in 1946 in its Revised Constitution (Martin, supra).
Canons of ethics adopted by bar associations, while they do not have the effect of statutes, are binding
on lawyers. The authority of the canons of ethics is derived, not from the fact that they are approved
by the bar association, but because they are statements of principles and rules accepted and
acknowledged by reputable attorneys and recognized and applied by the courts in the proper cases (7
C.J.S. 843).

F.Treatises
Some of which are the following:
Archer—The Ethical Obligations of a Lawyer
Cheatham—Cases and Other Materials on the Legal Profession
Cohen—The Law, Business or Profession
Drinker—Legal Ethics
Malcolm—Legal and Judicial Ethics
Jessup—The Professional Ideals of the Lawyer
Hicks—Organization and Ethics of the Bench and Bar
Pound—The Lawyer from Antiquity to Modern Times
The Ethical Conduct of a Lawyer
Sharswood—Legal Ethics
Warvelle—Legal and Judicial Ethics
Wilkin—The Spirit of the Legal Profession
(Martin, Legal and Judicial Ethics, page 3). The Ethical Conduct of a Lawyer, 241 SCRA 128, February 6, 1995

Quasijudicial office, defined.

Since lawyers are administrators of justice, oathbound servants of society, their first duty is not to their clients, as
many suppose, but to the administration of justice; to this, their client's success is wholly subordinate; and their
conduct ought to and must be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. (In re Kelly, 243, F: 696, 705). A lawyer
occupies what may be termed a quasijudicial office, since he is in fact an officer of the court and like the court itself,
he is an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice. (Karlin vs. Culkin, 60-ALR 851).

Is the recommendation of a foreign state bar sufficient to impose sanctions on an erring Filipino lawyer?

In Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. v. Fasgi Enterprises, Inc., 342 SCRA 722 (2000), we explained that “[a] foreign
judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the
basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum.”In herein case,
considering that there is technically no foreign judgment to speak of, the recommendation by the hearing officer of
the State Bar of California does not constitute prima facie evidence of unethical behavior by Atty. de Vera.
Complainant must prove by substantial evidence the facts upon which the recommendation by the hearing officer
was based. If he is successful in this, he must then prove that these acts are likewise unethical under Philippine law.
Velez vs. De Vera, 496 SCRA 345, A.C. No. 6697, Bar Matter No. 1227, A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC July 25, 2006

Page 4 of 7
 LAST MINUTE LECTURE NOTES IN LEGAL ETHICS

Important provisions of Bar Matter 2012

Section 5
(a) Every practicing lawyer is required to render a minimum of sixty (60) hours of free legal aid services to indigent
litigants in a year. Said 60 hours shall be spread within a period of twelve (12) months, with a minimum of five (5)
hours of free legal aid services each month. However, where it is necessary for the practicing lawyer to render legal
aid service for more than five (5) hours in one month, the excess hours may be credited to the said lawyer for the
succeeding periods.

For this purpose, a practicing lawyer shall coordinate with the Clerk of Court for cases where he may render free
legal aid service. He may also coordinate with the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter to inquire about cases
where he may render free legal aid service. In this connection, the IBP Legal Aid Chairperson of the IBP Chapter shall
regularly and actively coordinate with the Clerk of Court.

The practicing lawyer shall report compliance with the requirement within ten (10) days of the last month of each
quarter of the year.
(b) A practicing lawyer shall be required to secure and obtain a certificate from the Clerk of Court attesting to the
number of hours spent rendering free legal aid services in a case.

Censure can also be imposed on harmless acts.

The foregoing discussion merely describes respondent’s conduct as a “careless or reckless behavior in the making of
inaccurate or untruthful statements before the Court of Appeals as well as before the Office of the Solicitor General,
among others.” Indeed, as it does not appear that substantial prejudice has been actually caused complainant or the
forum to whom the statements have been addressed, the truth or falsity of the statement or representation in
question being irrelevant in the resolution of the cases at hand, the same do not justify his disbarment. However,
since said conduct falls short of the exacting standards of candor and fairness required of lawyers (Canon 22, Canons
of Professional Ethics), the same is censurable. Monzon vs. Reyes, 67 SCRA 402, Adm. Case No. 1056 October 27,
1975

Judges should not be thin-skinned or sensitive.

It is propitious to remind our judges that they should not be so thin-skinned or sensitive as to feel personally hurt or
affronted everytime a complaining lawyer momentarily loses his "cool" and writes in or utters less than polite
language, more so when the lawyer is merely expressing an honest opinion about them which may not altogether
be flattering. "After all, what matters is that a judge performs his duties in accordance with the dictates of his
conscience and the light that God has given him. A judge should never allow himself to be moved by pride, prejudice,
passion, or pettiness in the performance .of his duties." Especially when the judge has sensed that the lawyer's
reason is already clouded with intense emotion, he is called upon to exercise a more tolerant attitude, and not to
immediately wield the power of courts to punish for contempt. For it can hardly be denied that such power can be
quite easily abused by a vindictive, biased, and unreasonable judge. It follows, however, that what is a fair and
reasonable reaction on the part of a judge, to verbal criticisms hurled against him, varies, depending on the
circumstances. Baja vs. Macandog, 158 SCRA 391, No. L-60007 February 29, 1988

Speedy disposition of cases by the judge, exception.

Under Rule 3.01 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge must be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence, and Rule 3.05 admonishes all judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and to
decide the case within the period fixed by law. The 90-day period to decide or resolve the case submitted for
decision, fixed no less by the Constitution, is a mandatory requirement. Hence, non-compliance thereof shall subject
the erring judge to administrative sanction as this Court may deem appropriate. It is only in certain meritorious
cases, i.e., those involving difficult questions of law or complex issue or when the judge is burdened by heavy

Page 5 of 7
 LAST MINUTE LECTURE NOTES IN LEGAL ETHICS

caseloads, that a longer period to decide may be allowed but only upon proper application made with the Supreme
Court by the concerned judge. Seares vs. Salazar, 345 SCRA 308, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1160 November 22, 2000

Outrageous defense may aggravate the administrative liability of a lawyer.

Respondent’s negligence is compounded by his attempt to have this tribunal believe the story of how his draft,
stored in a magnetic diskette, mysteriously disappeared and how the absence of such file in his diskette led him to
believe that the same was already filed in court. In his Answer, he even tried to depict himself as a conscientious
lawyer by stating that he was actually mulling on the procedural steps he would undertake regarding complainant’s
case when instead he received a copy of this complaint for disbarment. Such story, as observed by the IBP, is not
only outrageous but is contemptuous as it makes a mockery of the Court. Again, the Code of Professional
Responsibility is explicit on this matter: CANON 10—A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Rule
10.01—A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow
the court to be misled by any artifice. Respondent would have this Court believe a very preposterous story of how
his draft disappeared, all the time avoiding the simple fact that he failed to submit the necessary pleading before
the trial court. Such behavior cannot be countenanced and deserves stern penalty therefor. Perea vs. Almadro, 399
SCRA 322, Adm. Case No. 5246 March 20, 2003

Affidavit of Desistance in disbarment case can be disregarded.

We note the affidavit of desistance filed by Gonzales. However, we are not bound by such desistance as the present
case involves public interest. Indeed, the Court’s exercise of its power to take cognizance of administrative cases
against lawyers is not for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties, but to protect the court and the
public against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in his profession. Gonzales vs. Cabucana, Jr., 479 SCRA 320,
A.C. No. 6836 January 23, 2006

Mitigating circumstances available in disbarment cases.

We shall consider however as mitigating circumstance the fact that he is representing the Gatcheco spouses pro
bono and that it was his firm and not respondent personally, which handled the civil case of Gonzales. As recounted
by complainant herself, Atty. Edmar Cabucana signed the civil case of complainant by stating first the name of the
law firm CABUCANA, CABUCANA, DE GUZMAN AND CABUCANA LAW OFFICE, under which, his name and signature
appear; while herein respondent signed the pleadings for the Gatcheco spouses only with his name, without any
mention of the law firm. We also note the observation of the IBP Commissioner Reyes that there was no malice and
bad faith in respondent’s acceptance of the Gatchecos’ cases as shown by the move of complainant to withdraw the
case. Gonzales vs. Cabucana, Jr., 479 SCRA 320, A.C. No. 6836 January 23, 2006

Government lawyers are mandated to be more circumspect in their duties.

The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring individual
lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the
misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the legal profession persons whose utter disregard of their lawyer’s oath
have proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the bar. These
pronouncement gain practical significance in the case at bar considering that respondent was a former member of
the Board of Special Inquiry of the BID. It bears stressing also that government lawyers who are public servants owe
fidelity to the public service, a public trust. As such, government lawyers should be more sensitive to their
professional obligations as their disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye. As a lawyer,
who was also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict demands and high standards of the
legal profession. Huyssen vs. Gutierrez, 485 SCRA 244, A.C. No. 6707 March 24, 2006

Page 6 of 7
 LAST MINUTE LECTURE NOTES IN LEGAL ETHICS

Preparing draft decision for a judge unbecoming of a lawyer.

The subject letters indeed indicate that respondent had previous communication with Judge Galicia regarding the
preparation of the draft decisions in Civil Case Nos. 81, 83, and 88, and which he in fact prepared. Although nothing
in the records would show that respondent got the trial court judge's consent to the said preparation, for a favor or
consideration, the acts of respondent nevertheless amount to conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the
Court. Lantoria vs. Bunyi, 209 SCRA 528, A.C. No. 1769 June 8, 1992

Constant company with a lawyer not countenanced by the court.

We cannot fully countenance the view of respondent Judge. Constant company with a lawyer tends to breed
intimacy and camaraderie to the point that favors in the future may be asked from respondent judge which he may
find hard to resist. The actuation of respondent Judge of eating and drinking in public places with a lawyer who has
pending cases in his sala may well arouse suspicion in the public mind, thus tending to erode the trust of the litigants
in the impartiality of the judge. This eventuality may undermine the people’s faith in the administration of justice. It
is of no moment that Atty. Augusto Schneider is the only lawyer in the locality. Padilla vs. Zantua, Jr., 237 SCRA 670,
A.M. No. MTJ-93-888 October 24, 1994

Lawyer’s Oath.1

I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the 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, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients;
and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help
me God.

1Do your best and believe in yourself. You will recite this next year before becoming a
member of the Philippine Bar. Good luck and God Bless to you!
Page 7 of 7