San Beda College Alabang

School of Law
Muntinlupa, Alabang

LEGAL PROFESSION
1B
Atty. Dawna Fya Bandiola
SAT 2:00PM-3:00PM

CHAPTER I
Lawyers’ Duties to the Society

GROUP 5:
Canon 1 – Gregorio II A. Maligaya
Canon 2 – Boni Gabriel Cortez
Canon 3 – June Wilson Mosquera
Canon 4 – Joseph Anthony Fajarito
Canon 5 – Polland Valmonte
Canon 6 – Assad Mohammad Assad Qwaider
 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: Duties to the Society
A lawyer has more dynamic and positive role in the community than merely
complying with the minimal technicalities of the statute/ As a man of law, he is necessarily
a leader of the community, looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct must, perforce,
be par excellence, especially so when he volunteers his professional services. (Blanza v.
Arcangel)

CANON 1
A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
“Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the
laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and
override the laws, to trample them under foot and to ignore the very bonds of society,
argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the
insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic.” (In re Gutierrez, 5 SCRA 661)

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Misconduct in Personal Dealings
Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility emphasize the high
standard of honesty and fairness expected of a lawyer not only in the practice of his
profession but in his personal dealings as well – he must conduct himself with great
propriety, and his behavior should be beyond reproach anywhere and all the times. (Agno
v. Cagatan)
It is well settled that that a lawyer’s conduct is not confined to the performance of
his professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in
his:
PROFESSIONAL; or
PRIVATE capacity. (Navarro v. Solidum, Jr.)
Test: Whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court. (Navarro v. Solidum, Jr.)
 Jurisprudential Examples :
• Estafa Cases (Verano v. Diores)
• Taking advantage of his knowledge of the law and surreptitiously easing out a
person from their restaurant by registering a corporation under a different but
a similar name and style, in the same line of business, and using the same
trade secrets. (Guillen v. Amado)
• Falsification of a deed of sale by forging the signature of the sellers (Valin v.
Ruiz)
• Overcharging of legal fees (Foster v. Agtang)
• Extra-marital Affair (Samaniego v. Ferrer, Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Tucay v.
Tucay, Guevara v. Eala, Toledo v. Toledo, Obusan v. Obusan Jr., Cojaunco,
Jr. v. Palma, Dantes v. Dantes, Villatuya v. Tabalingcos)

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice.
To that end, their client’s success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member of the
bar ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means
not honorable, fair, and honest which Is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of
his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical. (A.C. No. 5364)
Examples:
• Agreement of lawfully wedded spouses to live separately and have live –in
partner (1998 Bar Question)
• Failure to comply with court’s directive to file Rejoinder and to file a Comment
constitutes gross misconduct (Sebastian v. Bajar)
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
A lawyer is an officer of the court called upon to assist in the administration of
justice, any act of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts or impedes the administration of justice
constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against him. (Cantorne v. Ducusin)
 Rule 138, sec. 20, Rules of Court
Duties of attorneys – It is the duty of an attorney
x x x
C. 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;
x x x

Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy
if it will admit of a fair settlement
Lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their clients and are expected to serve the
latter with the competence and diligence. Consequently, lawyers are entitled to employ
every honorable means to defend to defend the cause of their clients and secure what is
due them. (Avida Land Corporation v. Argosino)
Some Out of Court Mediation, Reconciliation, and Arbitration Encouraged by the
State through Statutes:
COURT-ANNEXED-MEDIATION
SECTION 1. Mandatory Coverage for CAM in Civil Cases. — The following cases
shall be referred to CAM: (a) All ordinary civil cases, including mediatable permissive or
compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim as pleaded in the answer, complaint-in-
intervention, and third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, except those which cannot be the
subject of a compromise under Article 2035 of the New Civil Code; (AM No. 19-10-20 SC)
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
It means any process or procedure used to resolve a dispute or controversy, other
than by adjudication of a presiding judge of a court or an officer of a government agency,
as defined in this Act, in which a neutral third party participates to assist in the resolution
of issues, which includes arbitration, mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation,
mini-trial, or any combination thereof; (RA 9285)
CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION IN LABOR CASES
• Grievance Machinery in the CBA
• Referral to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
• Voluntary Arbitration
• Mandatory Arbitration
 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.

Lawyers’ authority to Bind Clients

o A lawyer is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in
which he appears and no written power atty is required to authorize him to
appear in court for his client, however, the presiding judge may, upon the
motion of either party and on reasonable grounds requires any atty to
produce or prove the authority under which he appears.
o Generally Unauthorized appearance is a ground for disbarment. However,
it was mentioned in the case of Garrido v Quisumbing – that a lawyer’s
appearance for a party without the authority of the latter must be willful,
corrupt or contumacious in order that he may be held administratively liable
BUT – if he acted in good faith, the complaint for suspension will be
dismissed
Rule 2.01 A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
• Indigent litigants – people who can’t afford to pay their own lawyers, basically
they are the poor. So here, the state will provide them lawyers which are the PAO
lawyers
• So, a lawyer assigned as counsel for an indigent prisoner should not be excused
for any trivial reasons and should always exerts his best efforts to defend that
person
• Regardless of his own personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused otherwise,
innocent persons, victims only of suspicious circumstances might be denied proper
defense.
• This is in accordance with the constitutional principle that “No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law.”
• In criminal cases, there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given an
opportunity to be heard by counsel
• Even the most intelligent person or educated man in the world may have no skill
in the science of law, particularly in rules of procedure and without counsel, he may
be convicted not because he is guilty, but he does not know how to establish his
innocence.
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.
 • A client has the absolute right to relieve his counsel at any time with or without
cause. On the contrary, the counsel, on his own, cannot terminate their atty-client
relation except for sufficient cause as determined by the court.
• What are the common justifiable reasons?

o Conflict of interest – if he labors under conflict of interest with an already

existing client. This is to protect the person from any thing which can be
prejudicial to his litigation

o Health reason - that he may not be able to perform effectively. If the lawyer
is sick or is impaired of his senses or ability

• Engagement Agreement
o The rendition of legal services depends on the agreement between the
lawyer and the client. Sec 26 of Rule 138 states that when the withdrawal
was made without the consent of the client, the court must first determine,
in a hearing upon notice to the client, whether the counsel may be allowed
to withdraw.

o As a rule – withdrawal of a counsel from a case made with the written

conformity of the client takes effect once the same is filed with the court.

o However, when the counsel’s impending withdrawal with the written

conformity of the client would leave the latter with no legal representation in
the case – the court may order the deferment of the effectivity of the
withdrawal until such time that the party-client would not be compromised:
▪ either by the due substitution of the withdrawing counsel or
▪ by express assurance of the party-client that he now undertakes
himself to receive serviceable processes and other papers

Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business.
• Time and time again lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession
and not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is
the primary consideration
• This rule proscribes “ambulance chasing” – the solicitation of any kind of legal
business by a lawyer, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment
• The prohibition of ambulance chasing is a measure to protect the community from
barratry and champerty
• Barratry – stirring up litigations, directly or through agents – this is unprofessional
for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring lawsuit
 • Champerty – an agreement in which a lawyer with no previous interest in lawsuit,
finances it with a view to sharing the disputed property or to the amount to be
collected if the suit succeeds

In the case of Ulep v Clinic

• Facts:
o Petitioner ulep asked the court to direct respondent Legal Clinic Inc. to
cease and desist from issuing advertisements such as this and he further
asked the court to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making
advertisements to the exercise of law profession other than those allowed
by law. According to the petitioner, this advertisement is champertous,
unethical, deamening of the law profession and destructive to the integrity
of the members of the bar

• Issue - whether or not it is prohibited advertising?

• Held
o The standards of the legal profession condemn lawyer’s advertisement of
his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of the profession,
advertise his talents or skills in a manner similar to a merchant advertising
his goods. The CPR provides that a lawyer making known of his services to
others shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified, and objective information
or statement of facts. Taking into consideration the nature and contents of
the respondent’s advertisement which includes a quotation of fees charged
plus advertisement of free books on Guam Divorce, it is obvious that this
advertisement is prohibited.
• However, the court also mentioned that not all advertisement is prohibited.
• CPR enumerates those permissible advertisement:
o Publication in a reputable law list
o Use of ordinary simple professional card which includes special branch of
law practiced
o Simple announcement of opening law firm
o Listing in telephone directory but not under a designation of special branch
of law
• According to Canon 27 – the best advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer
is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust.

Rule 2.04 – A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed
unless the circumstances so warrant
 • Cutthroat Competition – a lawyer lowering his rates than those customarily
prescribed in order that a client will choose him over another lawyer
• In terms of compensation. No court shall be bound by the opinion of lawyers as
expert witness as to proper compensation, a lawyer is entitled to have and recover
from his client any agreed amount stated in the written contract of service.
However, if the amount is found by the court to be unreasonable, the court may
act for this.
• Example – A (businessman) is looking for a new lawyer. He approached B
(lawyer) and asked for his legal fees. A informed B of the professional fees he is
presently paying his lawyer C, which is actually lower than B’s rates. A said that if
B lower his rates, he will engage to B’s services. B agreed to lower his rates with
the intention of getting A from C.
• ANSWER - No because it is prohibited under Rule 2.04 which is aimed against the
practice of cutthroat competition, which is not keeping with the principle that
practice of law is a noble profession and not a trade. Also, it is violation of Rule
8.02 of the Code for encroachment on the employment of a fellow lawyer.

Question and Answer

• Question – Are Barratry and Champerty prohibited under Canon 2?
• Answer - Yes, the concept of Barratry and Champerty are prohibited since the
primary consideration here is money not the professional duty of public service.
 CANON 3
A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE,
HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF
FACTS.

Regulation of Announcement of Availability

Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states, “Lawyers, in making
known his legal services, shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or statement of facts.” In Canon 2 CPR, particularly, Rule 2.03, we are told
that lawyers are not supposed to solicit legal business, however, such prohibition accepts
of certain exemptions, like modest advertising or announcement of availability, and Canon
3 provides for us the regulation and control of the nature of such announcement of
availability of lawyers to those who wish to avail of their service or representation.
Certainly, there is a reason to regulate solicitation made by lawyers. Time and time
again, it has been held that practice of law is a profession and not a business where the
paramount consideration is public service and secure justice and emoluments or
livelihood is secondary. Practice of law is a profession that the State is heavily interested
in as lawyers are agents of the State and assists in the administration of law and justice.
Thus, the dignity and integrity of the lawyers and justice system must be maintained. In
addition, exaggeration and making overstatements is allowed in trade in order to sell
products and services. The same is not acceptable in the legal profession as it
commercializes the practice of law, tending to degrade or lower it. Advertising also
includes self-praise, which leads to assertion of fraudulent claims—something that the
legal profession cannot partake considering the duties inherent to it: duty to courts,
colleagues, clients and society. Lastly, advertising is effective and if lawyers resort to it
just like in trade/business, then there is danger of increase in litigation and lawsuits. With
the current state of backlog cases in the courts, this should not be encouraged.

Objective Statements only, no false or self-laudatory claims

Rule 3.01 states that, “A lawyer shall not pose or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory, or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualification or legal services”. In the United States, it is common knowledge
that lawyers are allowed to advertise their services as seen from the popular television
ads that they have resorted to in order to solicit business. Traditionally, there was a
prohibition of lawyers making TV ads, however, in the case of Bates v. State Bar of
Arizona, where the petitioners filed a case questioning the prohibition as it goes against
the freedom of speech of the people, the US Supreme Court ruled in their favor agreeing
with their contention as well as saying that such ban impeded the free flow of information
and kept public in ignorance. Subsequently, the ban on advertisement was lifted across
the United States.
The following are what is considered proper and improper advertising:

ALLOWED IMPROPER
Must be compatible with dignity of legal Self-laudatory
profession
Made in a modest, decorous manner Self-praising statements in
It will bring no injury to lawyer or to the newspaper or professional cards
bar

Here are some examples:

1. A calling card, 2x2 in size, bearing his name in bold print, office, residence and
email addresses telephone and facsimile numbers. Ethical.
2. A business card, 3x4 in size, indicating the aforementioned date with his photo 1x1
in size. Unethical.
3. A pictorial pres release in a broadsheet newspaper made by attorney showing him
being congratulated by the president of a client corporation winning a multi-million
damage suit in the Supreme Court. Unethical.
4. Same press release made by his client in a tabloid. Ethical.
5. A small announcement in Balita, a tabloid in Filipino, that the attorney is giving free
legal advice. Unethical. (2002 Bar Question)

To further illustrate, we have the case of Bengco v. Atty. Bernardo (A.C. No. 6368,
June 13, 2012), wherein complainants Fidela and Teresita Bengco contracted the
services of Attorney Bernardo with the help of Andres Magat in order to have properties
in Tagaytay titled. Atty. Bernardo, apparently, made self-praising and laudatory claims
such as being the lawyer of William Gatchalian, owner of Plastic city and prospective
buyer (where in fact he is not) and having contacts at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO and
Register of Deeds, which would enable him to expedite the titling. Atty. Bernardo was
suspended from the practice of law for a year for clear violation of Rule 3.01 of making
false, misleading, self-laudatory and self-praising claims in order to contract
representation of the complainants.
Be firm with the firm name
Rule 3.02 “In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name
shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible
provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.
The rule provides two considerations: no name of anybody not authorized to practice law
shall be used in the firm name because it is misleading and that deceased partner's name
may still be used provided that it be indicated. Previously, it was held that any firm partner
name must be removed upon his passing. This was abandoned in the case of Sycip (92
SCRA 1), where the Court held that the use of deceased partner's name is permissible.
This is to give recognition to the good will that the partner contributed to the reputation of
the firm and removal of the same will disturb the consistency of the good will.
To further illustrate this rule, we have the case of Dacanay v. Baker and Mackenzie
(A.C. No. 2131 May 10, 1985), wherein petitioner Attorney Dacanay, in seeing the other
lawyers use of the letterhead of another office in a demand letter directed at his client,
questioned it and upon getting no response, filed an instant complaint. The Court enjoined
the respondent lawyers who are under the firm of Guerrero and Torres from practicing
law under the name Baker and Mackenzie, it being an international organization based in
Chicago, Illinois, thus, being a foreign firm, is not authorized to practice law in the
Philippines.

When lawyers become part of public office

Rule 3.03 “Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm
and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice
law concurrently”. The rule refers to when lawyers are appointed or elected into public
office. Depending on what position they assigned, they will be restricted or prohibited from
practice of law and concomitant to this, the withdrawal of their name from the firm name.
This is to avoid causing undue influence brought by being in position in public office and
impact how cases are ruled.

Appearances in TV, print and radio

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”.
Generally, appearance on TV, giving legal advice via newspaper or interviews in radio
programs is prohibited. What is allowed is if it to give legal aide to indigents or those who
cannot afford legal service or when it is sanctioned or sponsored by the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines. What is being prohibited is not the advertisement itself but the
surreptitious or method to secure media publicity in order to attract business.
 In conclusion, Canon 3 reiterates the concept of practice of law as a profession
and not a business, where self-praise, self-laudatory claims or exaggeration is allowed
because it degrades the profession and relegates it into a money-making venture when
its primary consideration is for public service and secure justice. As in the case of Director
of Religious Affairs v. Bayot (74 Phil. 579) stated, “the best advertisement a lawyer can
have is his well-deserved reputation for competence, probity, and integrity”.

Sources:

Antiquiera, E. (2008). “Comments on Legal and Judicial Ethics”. Rex Publishing.

Bengco v. Atty. Bernardo. AC No. 6368. June 13, 2012.
Cabochan, J. (2018). “Ethically Yours: Your Legal and Judicial Ethics Reviewer”. Rex
Publishing.
Dacanay v. Baker & Mackenzie. AC No. 2131. May 10, 1985.
Mendoza-Arcega, M. and Dechavez, J.(2020). “Legal Ethics”. Rex Publishing.
 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.

For the Development of the Legal System and unification

In re: Bar Integration, the Supreme Court elucidated that Integration of the
Philippine Bar means the official nation unification of the entire lawyer of the Philippines.
This requires membership and financial support of every attorney as conditions to the
practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme
Court. To complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity with power
to do so. Designed to improve the position of the Bar as an instrumentality of justice and
the Rule of Law.

Canon 4 also promotes the objectives of the legal profession with the principle of
maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court.

Integrated Bar

• The purpose of the Integrated Bar, in general are:

• Assist in the administration of justice
• Foster and maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity, learning,
professional competence, public service and conduct
• Safeguard the professional interest of its members
• Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood
• 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 public information relating thereto
• Encourage and foster legal education
• Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective law,
and make reports and recommendations thereon
• Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively

The connection of the Canon 4 and Integrated bar is for the complete unification of
the Legal System.

In re: Request of the National Committee on Legal

The Supreme Court lauded the Misamis Oriental Chapter of the IBP for its effort to
help improve the administration of justice, particularly, the access to justice by the poor.
Its Resolution No. 24, series of 2008, the said chapter recommended to the National
Committee on Legal Aid the exemption from the payment of filing, docket and other fees
of clients of the legal aid offices in the various IBP chapters.
 According to the Supreme Court, in performing Resolution No. 24, the Misamis
Oriental Chapter of the IBP has effectively performed its duty to participate in the
development of the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the
administration of justice.
 CANON 5
A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE
HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING
OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE.
SC elucidated that the bar has been integrated for the attainment of
a) elevating
the standards of the legal profession
b) improve the administration of justice
and c)
enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively
In line with these
objectives, lawyers must keep themselves abreast of legal developments and to do so,
he must walk with the dynamic movements of the law and jurisprudence. He must
acquaint himself at least with the newly promulgated rules and jurisprudence since the
laws are continuously changing. There are other rules and laws that is being promulgated
by different authorities. example as such are administrative circulars and executive
orders
a lawyer’s life is one of the continuous and laborious study, otherwise his skill
and knowledge of the law and related disciplines will lag behind and become obscure due
to obsoleteness
It is implicit in a lawyer’s mandate to protect his client’s rights and
interest to the best of his/her ability. a lawyer cannot defend the rights and interest of his
client if he is not knowledgeable of the law or he is not updated of the newly promulgated
rules. this will constitute gross ignorance of the law. also, the case may be dismissed on
technical grounds if a lawyer cannot adapt legally sound arguments for his clients

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)

Section 1 of the MCLE states that continuing legal education is required of
members of the integrated bar of the Philippines to ensure that throughout their career,
they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession, and
enhance the standards of the practice of law.

Section 2. Requirements of completion of MCLE

Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete, every three (3) years,
at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE
Committee. Of the 36 hours:

(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics.

(b) At least (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution.
 (d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and
procedural laws, and jurisprudence.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international
conventions.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be
prescribed by the MCLE Committee.

Non-Compliance
The following constitute non-compliance with the MCLE:
• Failure to complete education requirement within the compliance period
• Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption
• Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance
• Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish such compliance within 60
days from receipt of non-compliance notice
• Failure to pay non-compliance fee within prescribed period
• Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to
circumvent or evade compliance with MCLE requirement

Consequence of Non-Compliance
A member failing to comply with the continuing legal education requirement will
receive a non-compliance notice stating specific deficiency. He will be given 60 days from
the receipt of the notification to explain the deficiency or otherwise compliance with the
requirements lawyers may use the 60 days period to complete his compliance with the
MCLE requirement, but the credits earned during this period may only be counted toward
compliance with the period requirement unless units excess of the requirement are
earned in which case the excess may be counted toward meeting the current compliance
period requirement. A member who is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance
period shall pay a non-compliance fee and shall be listed as a delinquent member of the
IBP by the IBP board of governors upon recommendation of the MCLE committee
Membership fees shall continue to accrue at the active rate against a member
during the period he/she is listed as a delinquent member. even if they are not practicing
law
Bar Matter 1922, June 3, 2008
BM 1922 requires practicing members of the bar to indicate in all pleadings and
date of issue of their MCLE certification. of compliance or certificate of exemptions. and
it provides that failure to disclose such information would cause for the dismissal of the
case. however, it has been abandoned in the ruling of people vs Arrojado where it will no
longer dismiss the case and expunction of the pleadings from the records but will subject
the lawyer to fine or disciplinary action
B.M. No. 850 October 2, 2001, Section 1, Rule 7. People who are exempted from
MCLE
- The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and
Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
- Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
- The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and
retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar
Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy
program of continuing judicial education;
- The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the
Department of Justice;
- The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
- The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government
Corporate Counsel;
- The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
- The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and
the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
- Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
- Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
- The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and
Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
- Governors and Mayors.

B.M. No. 850 October 2, 2001, Section 2, Rule 7

• Those who are not in law practice, private or public.

• Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of
Governors.

A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as
physical disability, illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from
compliance with or modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of time
for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the MCLE
Committee. but this is not absolute at it is still subject to approval of the MCLE board

Sources:
Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 5
In Re: IBP, 49 SCRA 22
A.C no. 6295, Apr, 2004
B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000
People vs Jesus Arrojado (G.R. No. 207041 November 9, 2015)
Bar Matter 1922, June 3, 2008
 CANON 6
THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN
THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
Duties Of Government Lawyers
Cannon 6. of the code of professional responsibility laid down the rules to be
observed by government lawyers in the performance of their functions. More specifically,
Cannon 6 highlights the continuing standard of ethical conduct to be observed by
government lawyers in the discharge of their official tasks. In addition to the standard of
conduct laid down under R.A. 6713 for government employees, a lawyer in the
government service is obliged to observe the standard of conduct under the code of
professional responsibility.
Since the public office is a public trust, the ethical conduct demanded upon lawyers
in the government service is more demanding than the standards for those in private
practice.
They also have the heavy burden of having to put aside their public interest in favor
of the interest of the public. Their private activities should not interfere with the discharge
of their official functions.
Public Official
As Defined in R.A 6713
"Public Officials" includes elective and appointive officials and employees,
permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including
military and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation,
regardless of amount.
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.
Jurisprudence
Lim-Santiago v. Atty. Sagucio A.C. No. 6705, 31 March 2006
FACTS:
Ruthie Lim-Santiago charges Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio for engaging in the private
practice of law while working as a government prosecutor. As to the first charge,
complainant contends that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests.
Respondent, being the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat,
knew the operations of Taggat very well. Respondent should have inhibited himself from
hearing, investigating and deciding the case filed by Taggat employees. Furthermore,
complainant claims that respondent instigated the filing of the cases and even harassed
and threatened Taggat employees to accede and sign an affidavit to support the
complaint. As to the second charge, complainant contends that respondent is guilty of
engaging in the private practice of law while working as government prosecutor.
Complainant presented evidence to prove that respondent received P10,000 as retainer’s
fee for the months of January and February 1995, another P10,000 for the months of April
and May 1995, and P5,000 for the month of April 1996.
ISSUE:
W/N being a former lawyer of Taggat conflicts with respondent’s role as Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor.
HELD:
Yes. Canon 6 provides that the Code “shall apply to lawyers in government service
in the discharge of their official duties.” A government lawyer is thus bound by the
prohibition “not [to] represent conflicting interests.”

Cuenca v. CA G.R. No. 109870, 1 December 1995

FACTS:
After his petition for review of the CA’s judgment affirming his conviction for
violation of the “Trust Receipts Law” was denied, petitioner filed a pleading entitled
“Substitution of Counsel with Motion for Leave to File Motion for New Trial.” The Court
granted the substitution but denied the motion for leave to file motion for new trial on the
ground that the petition have already been denied previously. Notwithstanding, petitioner
filed a “Motion to Admit Attached Motion for New Trial,” and a “Manifestation and Second
Motion to Admit.” The Court thereafter required the Solicitor General to comment on said
motion and manifestation within 10 days from notice. In the comment filed, the Solicitor
General recommends that petitioner be entitled to a new trial, proceeding from the same
impression that a certain Rodolfo Cuenca’s (petitioner’s brother sworn statement is an
admission against interest which may ultimately exonerate petitioner from criminal
liability.
ISSUE:
W/N new trial should be granted.
HELD:
YES. Under Rule 6.01 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
prosecutors who represent the People of the Philippines in a criminal case are not duty
bound to seek conviction of the accused but to see that justice is done. Said Rule 6.01 of
Canon 6 states
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 with his public
duties interfere
Public Office Is a Public Trust
Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution:
• Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all
times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest
lives.

Jurisprudence
Facturan v. Barcelona A.C. No. 11069, 8 June 2016
FACTS:
The complainant alleged that on June 4, 2004, he filed a complaint for qualified
theft against Pilar Mendoza and 4 others. The complaint was forwarded to herein
respondent prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona for approval. However, he failed to take
necessary action on the complaint. Instead, he removed the case records from the office
of the Provincial Prosecutor and brought them to his residence. Later, it was found out
that one of the accused was his relative.
ISSUE:
W/N prosecutor Barcelona has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. Respondent’s actions and omissions in this case, appear to have been
committed for the benefit of and to safeguard private interests. As a lawyer who is also a
public officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict demands and high
standards of the legal profession. It bears stressing that a lawyer in public office is
expected not only to refrain from any act or omission.
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
Jurisprudence
Pasok v. Zapatos A.C. No. 7388, 19 October 2016
FACTS:
Respondent Felipe G. Zapatos was the Presiding Judge of the MTC in Tangub
City where he presided over a forcible entry case, Rupinta v. Sps. Conol. Complainant
Atty. Rutillo Pasok was the counsel of Rupinta. Another civil complaint was filed by
Rupinta against Sps. Conol where complainant represented the plaintiffs. Later on,
respondent was appointed Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 35 in Ozamis City.
Complainant was surprised that the defendants are now represented by respondent, the
former judge who once presided over the aforesaid case. Since the case was later on
dismissed, complainant appealed to the RTC. He also alleged that the appearance of
respondent is highly illegal, immoral, unethical and adverse to the interest of the public,
respondent, being the previous presiding judge, continued on with his appearance for the
appellees.
The IBP-CBD found and held the respondent guilty of violating Rule 6.03 of the CPR,
recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law and as a member of the Bar
for 1 month.
ISSUE:
W/N the respondent lawyer is guilty for violating the CPR.
HELD:
YES. To come within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the CPR, the respondent must be
show to have accepted the engagement or employment in relation to a matter that, by
virtue of his judicial office, he had previously exercised power to influence the outcome of
the proceedings. That showing was sufficiently made herein. His act of presiding
constituted intervention within the meaning of the rule. He not only exercised the power
to influence the outcome of the proceedings but also had a direct hand in bringing about
the result of the case by virtue of his having the power to rule on it.