Legal Ethics

The practice of law is any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience. It is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of
legal knowledge or skill.

Caronan v. Caronan. The practice of law is a privilege. The practice of law is a privilege limited to citizens of good moral character.
Respondent exhibited his dishonesty and utter lack of moral fitness to be a member of the Bar when he assumed the name, identity,
and school records of his own brother Respondent and his acts do not have a place in the legal profession where one of the primary
duties of its members is to uphold its integrity and dignity.

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. The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law. The disclosure
requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether there is satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the applicant.

In re: Petition to re-acquire the privilege to practice law in the Philippines of Muneses. A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen
of another country and later re- acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine
Bar. However, the right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 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.

Cruz v. Mina. In Sec 34, Rule 138, appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly allowed.
Petitioner’s request was anchored on this On the other hand, Rule 138 – A, provides for conditions when a law student, not as an agent
or a friend of a party litigant, may appear before the courts.

Duties and Responsibilities of a Lawyer

Zaldivar v. Gonzales. One of the fundamental public interests which limits, to an extent, the constitutional freedom of free speech, is
the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. Criticism directed at the Supreme Court is not
prohibited, however, as marked out by Justice Castro in In re: Almacen, the following is worth noting: “It is the cardinal condition of
all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between
fair criticism and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of
respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.”

Castañeda v. Ago. The Court held that their lawyer violated Canon 1.04 for trying to "subvert the very ends of justice"- instigating
controversy and conflict, instead of being a mediator. It is a lawyer's duty to advise their clients on the merits or lack thereof, of their
case. If they find that the client's cause is defenseless, they must advise the client to acquiesce and submit.

Ledesma v. Climaco. The Court held that Ledesma should not be allowed to withdraw as counsel. The right of an accused, especially
in the case of an indigent defendant, in a criminal case to be represented by counsel is a constitutional right of the highest importance.
The petitioner’s withdrawal is an act showing his lack of fidelity to the duty required of the legal profession. Membership in the bar is
burdened with conditions, the legal profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A lawyer may be required to
act as counsel de officio to aid in the administration of justice, even if such services are rendered without pay should be of non-
importance.

Linsangan v. Tolentino. The Court held that Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Although Atty. Tolentino initially denied knowing Labiano, he admitted he actually knew her later in the proceedings.
It is thus clear that Labiano was connected to his law office. Through Labiano’s actions, Atty. Tolentino’s law practice was benefited.
Additionally, Labiano’s calling card is improper. The card made it appear that the law office will finance legal actions for the clients.
The rule is, a lawyer shall not lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a
legal matter he is handling for the client.
Mapalad, Sr. v. Echanez. Atty. Echanez’s acts of: (a) not complying with two MCLEs for two compliance periods; (b) repeatedly
indicating false MCLE compliance numbers in his pleadings before the trial courts; and (c) repeatedly failing to obey legal orders of
trial court, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and also the Supreme Court despite due notice, taken together, constitute serious cases
which merit disbarment.

Roque v. Balbin. A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall
avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Supreme Court Resolution in Falcis III vs. Civil Registrar General. The requirement under Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and to insist on similar
conduct by others, also encompasses appearances before courts in proper attire.

PNB v. Uy Tieng Pao. With respect to the testimony of the bank's attorney, the Court stated that although the law does not forbid an
attorney to be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a cause, the courts prefer that counsel should not testify as a witness unless
it is necessary, and that they should withdraw from the active management of the case. 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.

Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Sanchez. The Court accepted the apology but warned that such lenience will not be shown in the future. It
is their duty as officers of the court to properly apprise their clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude toward courts of justice,
and to labor leaders of the importance of a continuing educational program for their members. The Court will apply the full force of
the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the Court into acting in one way or another in any case pending before
it.

Foodsphere v. Mauricio Jr. The Court held that Atty. Mauricio has violated the code of professional responsibility. His recourse to
the media, even after being told to desist from such, was a clear breach of the lawyer’s oath and ethics embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Blanza v. Arcangel. The Court dismissed the charges against respondent for being legally insufficient, but reminded Atty. Arcangel
of the high standards of the practice of law. Respondent overlooks the fact that he volunteered his professional services and thus was
not legally entitled to recover fees. Having established the attorney-client relationship voluntarily, he was bound to attend to
complainants' claims with all due diligence.

Mercado v. Vitriolo. The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Vitriolio did not violate the rule on privileged communication between
attorney-client when he filed the criminal case for falsification. The evidence on record fails to substantiate complainants allegations.
Complainant did not even specify the alleged communication disclosed by the respondents. All her claims were couched in general
terms and lacked specificity. Indeed, the complaint failed to attend the hearings at the IBP. Without any testimony from the
complainant as to the specific confidential information allegedly divulged by respondent without her consent, it would be difficult if
not impossible to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged communication. Such information is a crucial link in
establishing a breach of the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client. It is not enough to merely assert the
attorney client privilege. The burden of proving that the privilege applies is placed upon the party asserting the privilege.

Hornilla v. Salunat (Resolution). The Supreme Court held that a lawyer engaged as counsel for a corporation cannot represent
members of the same corporation's board of directors in a derivative suit brought against them. Respondent was guilty of conflict of
interest, which is prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility, when he represented the parties against whom his other client,
the PPSTA, filed suit.

Albano v. Coloma. According to the Court any counsel is entitled to be fully recompensed for his services. He is entitled to the
protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of a client to escape payment of his fees. Since Albano failed to
substantiate his claims against Atty. Coloma, the charge against the latter is dismissed. Regarding the allegedly forged document,
Court found decisions of the lower courts affirming authenticity of the document as constituting res judicata.

Masmud v. NLRC. The Court ruled that the ordinary concept of attorney’s fees under Sec. 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court should
be applied in this case and not the extraordinary concept which is under Art. 111 of the Labor Code. Evangelina sustained no damages
recoverable as attorney’s fees in contrast to what is stated in the labor statute. The contingent fee contract between Alexander and
Atty. Go controls the amount that should be paid based on Sec. 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Contingent fee contracts are subject to the supervision and close scrutiny of the court in order that clients may be protected from
unjust charges. A much higher compensation is allowed as contingent fees because of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if the
suit fails.
Two concepts of attorney’s fees –

1. In the ordinary concept, attorney’s fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services
rendered to the latter.

2. In the extraordinary concept, attorney’s fees may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to
the prevailing party.

Suspension, Disbarment, and Discipline

In the Matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo A. Diao. A lawyer may be disbarred from misrepresentation or false
pretense relative to the requirements for admission to practice. The fact that he lacked any of the qualifications for membership at the
time he took his oath is a ground for his disbarment. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney. Taking the
prescribed courses of legal study is equally essential.

JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Libarios v. Dabalos. The Court held that the judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. He should not have allowed himself to be
swayed into issuing an order fixing bail for the temporary release of the accused charged with murder, without a hearing, contrary to
established principles of law. In every case, a Judge should endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed
by partisan or personal interests, public opinion, or fear of criticism. A judge should not only render a just, correct and impartial
decision but should do so in a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity.

Dela Cruz v. Bersamira. The Court stated that in Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all his activities. A judge is not only required to be impartial; he must also appear to be impartial.
Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance. It was, thus, held that it is improper for a judge to meet privately with the accused
without the presence of the complainant.

People v. Veneracion. The courts cannot impose a penalty lower than that prescribed by law. As long as that penalty remains in the
statute books, and as long as our criminal law provides for its imposition in certain cases, it is the duty of judicial officers to respect
and apply the law regardless of their private opinions or religious convictions.

Discipline of Members of the Judiciary

Republic v. Sereno. The Court held that impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly elected impeachable official
may be removed from office. A quo warranto covers an act or omission committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election
relating to an official's qualifications to hold office as to render such appointment or election invalid, provided that the requisites for
the commencement thereof are present. In this case, the Supreme Court granted the quo warranto petition of the government thereby
removing Chief Justice Sereno from office. The court reasoned that impeachment refers to an offense done by the public official
during his term of office and there is a presumption that said official legally holds that office. In a quo warranto proceeding, the
question goes to the legality of the appointment.