“When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.
PRACTICE OF LAW is any activity in or out of court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and
experience. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or to render any
kind of service, which advice or service requires the use of any degree of
legal knowledge or skill. Hence, the Supreme Court declared that a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur, a lawyer-
negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor
are engaged in the practice of law. (Cayetano v. Monsod)
What are some factors determinative of engaging in the practice of
law? (HACA)
1) Habituality
2) Attorney-client relationship;
3) Compensation
4) Application of law, legal principle, practice, or procedure calls
for legal knowledge, training and experience.
WHO MAY PRACTICE LAW?
▪ 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. (Sec. 1, Rule 138)
o “Any person” – pertains to natural person. Juridical
persons like corporations cannot practice law.
o “Who is in good and regular standing” – pertains to
payment of IBP dues and good moral character.
o Ulep v. Legal Aid Clinic – Only natural persons can be
admitted to the Philippine Bar and be allowed to practice
law in the Philippines.
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
▪ Tan v. Sabandal – Moral character is not a subjective term but
one which corresponds to objective reality. The standard of
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
personal and professional integrity is not satisfied by such
conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty of
criminal law.
▪ Good moral character includes at least common honesty.
o It will include your answers to your petition to take the
bar such as your pending case.
▪ In relation to qualifications of a lawyer:
o If you will take the bar and you have a pending case for
naturalization, do not assume that your petition will be
granted upon your passing. You have to be qualified by
way of citizenship at the time of filing. (In Re Ching)
o If you have participated in hazing which caused the
death/injury of a neophyte, you are bereft of the good
moral character required of a lawyer. (In Re Argosino)
o Congress cannot pass a law providing for additional
qualifications of bar candidates or providing for a lower
passing rate. (In Re Cunanan)
o President cannot enter a treaty to allow Spanish lawyers
to practice law in the PH and in reciprocity, allow
Filipino lawyers to practice law in Spain. (In Re Garcia)
LOSS OF FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP
▪ A lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship cannot practice law
in the Philippines since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for
admission to the bar. Loss thereof terminates membership to
Philippine Bar.
▪ EXCEPTION: When Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of
naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently
reacquired it pursuant to RA 9225. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who
1 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
becomes a citizen of another country is deemed to never have lost
his PH citizenship if he reacquires it under RA 9225.
o Although he is deemed never to have terminated his
membership in the PH bar, NO AUTOMATIC RIGHT
to resume law practice accrues.
o He shall first apply with the proper authority for a license
or permit to engage in such practice. The authority comes
from the SC subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. Updating and payment of full annual
membership dues in the IBP;
▪ Santos v. Lllamas – IBP dues are not
covered by senior citizen discount.
2. Pay professional tax.
3. Completion of required hours of MCLE.
• Arnado v. Adaza - Non-compliance of
MCLE is a ground for disciplinary
action. Suspension until compliant.
• In order to be exempted from
compliance on the ground of expertise in
law, the applicant must submit
sufficient, satisfactory, and convincing
proof to establish his expertise in a
certain area of law.
NOTE: You cannot unilaterally declare
that you are exempt just because you are
practicing for 50 years and that you are
already an expert. Magsubmit ka ng
proof sa MCLE at sila ang magdedecide
if maeexempt ka.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
4. Retaking of the Lawyer’s Oath.
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
▪ The CPR being an action of the SC has the force and effect of law
and should be obeyed since it was issued pursuant to Sec. 5(5),
Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution.
LAWYER’S OATH
▪ Tip: memorize it because there will surely be a question asking
you to write down the lawyer’s oath.
▪ Breakdown of the lawyer’s oath:
I, (name) do solemnly swear that
1. I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
[PUBLIC]
2. I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein;
[PUBLIC & COURT]
3. I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; [COURT]
4. I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to
the same; [PUBLIC/COURT/BAR]
5. 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; [PUBLIC/COURT/BAR/CLIENT]
6. and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
So help me God.
2 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
FOUR PILLARS OF LEGAL ETHICS
It speaks of the duty of the lawyer to the public, to the bench, to the bar
and to the client.
1. DUTY TO THE COURT
 Respect or defend against criticisms, uphold authority and
dignity, obey order and processes, assist in the administration
of justice.
➢ A lawyer can criticize the court, point out the errors
of the court. However, it does not give the lawyer
the unbridled right to insult or malign the court.
➢ The orders of the court are judicial commands. It
must be followed promptly and expeditiously and
completely/thoroughly/immediately.
➢ We owe to the court our loyalty and obedience.
➢ The lawyer must never be the cause of delay. He
must never be the observer of dilatory tactics.
Otherwise, he will be sanctioned because as
officers of the court, our duty is to maintain and
ensure that the wheels of justice will turn regularly.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
2. DUTY TO THE BAR
 Candor, fairness, courtesy, and truthfulness, avoid
encroachment in the business of other lawyers, uphold the
honor of the profession.
➢ There must be honesty among lawyers.
➢ There must be respect so you do not covet your
panero’s clients.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
3. DUTY TO THE CLIENT
 Entire devotion to client’s interest.
➢ You have the duty of unquestionable loyalty to
your client.
➢ Kaya nga bawal yung mga double-bladed lawyer
or yung lawyer na counsel na ng plaintiff counsel
pa ng defendant. This amounts to conflict of
interest already. The only time that you are allowed
to do that is you need to have a full disclosure of
your involvement to all, and everyone must give
their express written consent. Otherwise, you will
be held liable on the violation on the rule on
proscription on conflict of interest.
➢ Scenario: yung kalaban ng client mo nilapitan ka
para iconvince mo ang client mo na iurong ang
kaso tapos in return, babayaran ka (example twice
ng binabayad sayo ng client mo). If you accept that
without the knowledge and consent of your client,
you are laboring under the loyalty to your client.
You can only accept that with the knowledge and
consent of your client.
4. DUTY TO THE PUBLIC
 Should not violate his responsibility to society, exemplar or
uprightness, ready to render legal aid, foster social reforms,
guardian of due process, aware of special role in the solution
of special problems and be always ready to lend assistance in
the study and solution of social problems.
DUTIES UNDER THE RULES OF COURT
(Section 20, Rule 138)
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to
support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines.
3 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice
and judicial officers;
(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.
(d) 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;
(e) 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;
(f) 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 charged;
(g) 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;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the
cause of the defenseless or oppressed;
(i) 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.
DUTIES UNDER THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
1. To the SOCIETY (Canons 1 to 6)
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
a. Respect for law and legal processes
➢ Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. (catch-all
provision)
➢ Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system.
➢ Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive
or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay
any man's cause.
➢ Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to
avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a
fair settlement.
• If in you assessment alam mo naman
talagang walang kaso at di mananalo ang
client mo, just follow 1.04.
b. Efficient and convenient legal services
➢ Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid
reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
• Example: appointment as counsel de officio.
You can refuse such if you think that your
client will be harmed because of you.
• Is a lawyer obligated to accept all the cases
presented before him? NO. Your duty starts
when you accept a case. Prior to that hindi ka
obligated. Tandaan mo nap ag inaccept mo
ang case, you are bound to your client until
death or disbarment to your part.
4 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
c. True, honest, fair, dignifies, and objective information on
legal services
➢ Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done
any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
➢ 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.
• You cannot advertise. You can only
advertise if advertising is allowed.
So when is it prohibited? Self-laudatory
statement that you are an expert in
criminal law. Pagbubuhat ng bangko.
Bawal yan.
What is allowed? Ilalagay mo ang
biography mo sa firm website for
example; sino ka anong mga kasong
nahawakan mo; other than that bawal na.
REMEMBER NOT ALL
ADVERTISING IS PROHIBTED.
d. Participation in the improvements 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.
e. 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
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
law schools as well as in the practical training of law
students and assist in disseminating the law and
jurisprudence.
f. Lawyers in government service discharging their tasks.
➢ Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in
public prosecution is not to convict but to see that
justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the
innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is
cause for disciplinary action.
➢ Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall
not use his public position to promote or advance his
private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with
his public duties.
• Public office is a public trust. Never a private
trust fund. Meaning bawal mo pagkakitaan
ang iyong office. Example dun pala sa office
mo sa lahat ng kaso iisang lawyer ang
nananalo kasi yun pala brod or sis mo.
2. To the LEGAL PROFESSION (IBP – RULE 139-A)
a. Membership and dues
➢ Membership in the IBP is mandatory.
➢ In Re Edillon - To compel a lawyer to be a member of
the Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional
freedom to associate. 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. In the same case,
the Court upheld its power to impose dues. If you don’t
want to pay the dues, edi wag ka mag practice.
5 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
b. Upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession
➢ Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly
making a false statement or suppressing a material fact
in connection with his application for admission to the
bar.
➢ Rule 7.03 - 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.
• Meaning what you do personally will reflect
on you professionally.
c. Courtesy, fairness, and candor towards professional
colleagues
➢ Do not do harassing tactics against fellow lawyers. Do
not be vindictive.
d. No assistance in unauthorized practice of law
➢ Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task which
by law may only be performed by a member of the bar
in good standing.
3. To the COURTS (Canons 10-13)
4. To the CLIENTS
a. Candor, fairness, and good faith towards the courts
➢ Right case, wrong citation = intentional or not?
➢ Right case, right citation, wrong doctrine =
intentional or not?
***If intentional, then liable.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
b. Respect for courts and judicial officers
➢ Being on time, dressing properly, filing the pleading on
time, do not abuse the generosity of court in allowing
the extension.
➢ Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
Courts.
c. Assistance in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice
d. Reliance on merits of case, not on impropriety tending to
influence the courts
➢ 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.
➢ Bumanglang v. Bumanglag – Respondent asked the
President to issue a PD telling the SC to reinstate him.
The Court held that what respondent did was gross
ignorance of the law because in reinstatement of
lawyers, it is only the Supreme Court which can
reinstate lawyers.
➢ Do not engage in chamber practice.
When your duty to the client will conflict with your duty to the
public, bench and to the bar, let go of your client.
a. Availability of service without discrimination
➢ Services regardless of person’s status
6 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
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.
➢ Service as counsel de office
Sections 31 & 32 of Rule 138
➢ Grounds for refusal
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client unless:
(a) he is not in a position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
(b) he labors under a conflict of interest between
him and the prospective client or between a present
client and the prospective client.
b. Candor, fairness, and loyalty to clients
➢ Confidentiality rule
➢ Privileged communication
➢ Conflict of interest
Gimeno v. Zaide - the tests to determine if a
lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting
interests between and among his clients:
1) Whether the acceptance of a new relation
would prevent the full discharge of a
lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty.
2) Whether a lawyer would be called upon in
the new relation to use against a former
client any confidential information
acquired through their connection or
previous employment.
Is representing clients with conflict of interest
absolutely prohibited? NO. It is allowed when
there is written consent of all the clients given after
a full disclosure of the facts.
➢ Candid and honest advice to clients
Do not sugarcoat. Tell the client kung ano talaga
ang pwede mangyari. Tell them the potential
results. Wag mong sasabihin palagi na mananalo
sya.
➢ Compliance with laws
Attorney-client relationship is a special kind of
agency. It is special because in matters of ethics,
procedure, and compliance with the law, the one
who should be obeyed is the lawyer and not the
client.
➢ Concurrent practice with another profession
If you are a CPA Lawyer or a Doctor Lawyer, when
giving advice to clients, sabihin mo na you are
giving the advice in your capacity as lawyer.
Note that you can only put up a professional
partnership with your co-lawyers. Bawal isama ang
doctors, nurses, teachers, etc.
7 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
c. Client’s money and properties
➢ Fiduciary relationship
Lawyer as agent and trustee.
Canon 16 - a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his
profession.
The property of the client is NOT yours and never
yours unless the client consents to you possessing
and owning the item.
You protect is as if it is your own, but you do not
use it as if it is your own.
➢ Co-mingling 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.
➢ Delivery of funds
Pera or Puri? Pag pinakialaman mo ang pera at
puri ng iba, madidisbar ka.
So if your client demands for the delivery of his
funds and property, you deliver it immediately.
Tandaan na pag ang pera ng client ay hindi mo
nagamit sa specific purpose na dapat paggamitan
nun at hiningi sayo ni client pabalik ang pera at
hindi mo agad mabalik, there arises a
PRESUMPTION that you misappropriated the
money.
➢ Borrowing or lending
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money
from his client unless the client's interest are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a
legal matter he is handling for the client.
d. Fidelity to client’s cause
➢ Use of fair and honest means
If you find out that the client is going to do
something illegal to the case, tell your client to stop
it. If he insists, go to Canon 22.
Rule 22.01 - A lawyer may withdraw his
services in any of the following case: (a)
When the client pursues an illegal or
immoral course of conduct in connection
with the matter he is handling; xxx
➢ Client’s fraud
Your duty to the client ends when your duty to the
public, bench, and bar begins.
➢ Procedure in handling cases
e. Competence and diligence
Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service
which he knows or should know that he is not qualified
to render. xxx
➢ Adequate protection
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
8 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
➢ Negligence
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Kapag si lawyer di nakapagfile ng pleading or
nagfile pero not on time.
Negligence of the lawyer binds the client.
HOWEVER, if the negligence is so gross that it
will be tantamount to depriving the client of his day
in court, the court may order that the client’s rights
be respected.
➢ Collaborating counsel
Pag collaborating counsel ka, wag kang aasta na
parang ikaw ang lead counsel. Collaborating nga
lang eh diba.
Respect to your brother lawyer. Pag nauna sya, ang
entrada mo lang ay collaborating counsel.
➢ 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 time to the client's request for
information.
f. Representation with zeal within legal bounds
➢ 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.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
g. Attorney’s fees
➢ Acceptance fees
Payment of acceptance fee is not a guarantee of
victory.
While lawyers are expected to serve their clients
with competence and diligence, they are not always
expected to be victorious. In every litigation, there
will always be a "winner" and a "loser", unless the
parties agree to settle the controversy between
themselves and to work at a "win-win" solution to
their problems. (Curimatmat v. Gojar)
➢ Contingency fee arrangements
In contingent fee arrangements, the lawyer gets
paid only if the legal activity is successful. In such
case, the lawyer gets to collect a certain portion of
the property or money involved, if he succeeds in
the case or activity. Such contract for contingent
fee is not prohibited under Article 1491 of the New
Civil Code and Canon 13 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics.
Allowed ito. Basta para manatiling contingent fee
sya, pwedeng magadvance ng pera ang lawyer pero
SUBJECT TO REIMBURSEMENT. So dapat ang
gastos ay sa client parin.
➢ Champertous contracts
Champertous contract is when the lawyer stipulates
with his client that in the prosecution of the case, he
will bear all the expenses for the recovery of things or
property being claimed by the client and the latter
agrees to pay the former a portion of the thing/property
recovered as compensation. Champertous contracts are
9 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
prohibited as they are against public policy and ethics
of the profession.
➢ Attorney’s liens
1) Charging lien - It is the equitable right of an
attorney to have fees and cost due to him for
services in a particular suit secured by the
judgment or recovery in such suit.
2) Retaining lien - It is the right of an attorney to
retain possession of a client’s documents, money or
other property which comes into the hands of the
attorney professionally until a general balance due
to him for his professional service is paid.
The attorney’s lien is allowed.
➢ 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.
Suit in Assumpsuit – it is a civil case filed by a lawyer
against the client for the unpaid attorney’s fees. It is a
remedy of last resort.
➢ Concepts of attorney’s fees
a) By way of compensation – as long as the client
is not prejudiced
b) By way of damages – 10% limit
h. Preservation of client’s confidences
➢ Prohibited disclosures and use
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
When the client tells you, “Sir ako ay papatay bukas”,
that is what you call pronounced intention to commit
a future crime. If that will be the case, your duty to
society to ensure that laws are obeyed will prevail.
Pero pag nagawa na ang crime, that is already covered
by the attorney-client privilege. Hindi mo na pwede
idisclose unless allowed by the client.
➢ Disclosures, 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.
BEWARE OF YOUR PLEADINGS!
Unfounded accusations or allegations or words tending to embarrass the
court or bring it into disrepute have no place in a pleading. Their
employment serves no useful purpose.
On the contrary, they constitute direct contempt of court or contempt in
facie curiae and, when committed by a lawyer, a violation of the lawyer’s
oath and a transgression of the CPR.
CASES
VELASCO v. CAUSING (2021)
SC suspends a lawyer for use of “unkind” words v. complainant on
facebook posts.
10 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
Complainant is the petitioner in a case for the declaration of nullity of his
marriage with Nina Ricci Narvaez Laudato. Atty. Causing is the counsel
of Laudato in the nullity case.
Atty. Causing posted on Facebook with the caption "Wise Polygamous
Husband?", to wit:
"WISE POLYGAMOUS HUSBAND?
"After marrying a girl as his second wife while his first wife was
still alive, when there was no doubt it was bigamous and a crime
of bigamy, this man still has the gall to file a petition to declare
his second marriage null and void.
"In his petition, he asked the RTC of Balanga to declare his
marriage void because of lack of marriage license and not
because of marriage being bigamous.
"If you want to read his petition, a copy is attached here. His
intention in filing the petition was to prevent the second wife's
criminal case of bigamy from succeeding by reason of prejudicial
question."
Atty. Causing invoked his right to freedom of expression and of the press
and argued that he was merely acting as a spokesman-lawyer and a
journalist-blogger when he made the post.
COURT HELD: A lawyer is not allowed to divide his personality as an
attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Regardless of whether
a lawyer is representing his client in court, acting as a supposed
spokesperson outside of it, or is merely practicing his right to press
freedom as a "journalist-blogger," his duties to the society and his ethical
obligations as a member of the bar remain unchanged.
In addition, Atty. Causing likewise violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR when
he used the words "polygamous," "criminal," "dishonest," "arrogance,
"disgusting," and "cheater" in the subject post and in his pleadings in
direct reference to complainant.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in
the dignity of judicial forum. Language abounds with countless
possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not
derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive.
BELO-HENARES V. GUEVARRA (2016)
In 2009, Respondent wrote a series of posts in his Facebook account
insulting and verbally abusing complainant.
His post includes: “xxx Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-duwag talaga.
Lalakarin ng Reyna ng Kaplastikan at Reyna ng Payola ang kaso...”
In defense, respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in violation
of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy, asserting that the posts
quoted by complainant were private remarks on his private account on
Facebook, meant to be shared only with his circle of friends of which
complainant was not a part. He also averred that he wrote the posts in the
exercise of his freedom of speech.
COURT HELD: on the matter of the privacy of posts, respondent has
failed to offer evidence that he utilized any of the privacy tools or features
of Facebook available to him to protect his posts, or that he restricted its
privacy to a select few.
Time and again, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of
expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. While the
freedom of expression and the right of speech and of the press are among
the most zealously protected rights in the Constitution, every person
exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses, is obliged to act with justice,
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
The constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of
to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or
reputation or bring them into disrepute.
In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and obscene
language, and his act of publicly insulting and undermining the reputation
of complainant through the subject Facebook posts are, therefore, in
11 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
complete and utter violation of the following provisions in the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
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.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
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.
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and
BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to
observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He
overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer
of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted
inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of
the law, and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults
and maligning complainant's and BMGI's reputation.
GADON CASE
The Supreme Court ordered the preventive suspension of Atty. Lorenzo
G. Gadon and for him to show cause why he should not be meted with the
ultimate penalty of disbarment in connection with his viral video uttering
profanities against journalist Raissa Robles.
The public has urged the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) to discipline Gadon over his latest vulgar rant, saying that Atty.
Gadon’s actions are not only an insult to Robles, but to the entire legal
profession as well. The call of the public did not fall on deaf ears, and the
Court immediately took action.
Gadon had, on previous instances, publicly displayed the same kind of
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
behavior, for which he is currently facing disbarment complaints before
the Court and the IBP.
In a Resolution issued today, January 4, 2022, the Court En Banc motu
proprio treated the matter as a formal administrative complaint for
disbarment against Gadon, who was given a non- extendible period of 10
days to file his comment, in consideration of the numerous prior
controversies leading to the disbarment cases filed against Gadon, and the
most recent viral video where he displayed the same controversial
behavior despite previous warnings.
Remember: It is the cardinal condition of all criticisms that it shall be
bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their
private capacity, as long as the misconduct reflects their want of probity
or good demeanor.
A good character being an essential qualification for the admission to the
practice of law and for continuance of such privilege.
SUSPENSION AND DISBARMENT
Rule 138, Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme
Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as
an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice
of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
You need to memorize Rule 1.01. It is a catch-all phrase:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct.
12 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by,
or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is "unlawful."
"Unlawful" conduct does not necessarily imply the element of criminality
although the concept is broad enough to include such element. To be
"dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray;
be unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle,
fairness and straight forwardness while conduct that is "deceitful" means
the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or
device that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the
prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon. (Jimenez v. Francisco)
BAR MATTER No. 1645 (Amending Rule 139-B)
▪ The dismissal of complaints filed against lawyers is a power
of the Supreme Court that cannot be delegated to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
▪ The motive of the complainant and his or her action/inaction
after the filing of a verified complaint against a lawyer are not
essential to the proceedings.
▪ Meaning the IBP can only recommend the dismissal of the
complaint. They cannot dismiss outright.
DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS
▪ It is a proceeding that is sui generis – proceeding unique in
itself:
o It never prescribes.
o It is neither civil nor criminal.
o No need for a complainant. The complainant is
reduced to a mere witness, an affidavit of desistance
has no effect on the continuation of the disbarment
proceedings.
o It can be conducted by the SC motu proprio.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
o Rules of evidence find no strict application, a lawyer
can be disbarred based on application of the principle
of res ipsa loquitor.
o Highly confidential.
▪ Disbarment will only be imposed for the gravest of offenses
of lawyers including conviction by final judgment for crimes
involving moral turpitude.
o "Moral turpitude" means an act of baseness, vileness,
or depravity in the private and social duties which a
man owes his fellowmen.
▪ A previous disbarment is not a bar to a subsequent
disbarment. You may be disbarred for as many times as you
are unethical. (Fernandez v. Grecia)
▪ Disbarment case is not the proper venue to attack someone’s
citizenship. (Vasquez v. Kho)
▪ A heated exchange involving a lawyer, if not malicious, is not
violative of the lawyer’s oath or the CPR. (Balburias v.
Francisco)
▪ Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude must be
proven with finality to warrant disbarment. (Intradent Phils
v. Francisco-Simbillo)
▪ The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be imposed
on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with
great caution and only for the most weight reasons. (In Re
Almacen)
▪ Effect of disbarment - A lawyer who is disbarred loses all
the privileges that comes with his passing the bar exams and
becoming a lawyer.
13 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
A lawyer who has been disbarred or suspended from practice
cannot practice law without being liable for contempt of
court. EXCEPT lawyering for myself scenario. Kung
nagappear ka for yourself, you are not practicing. You are just
like somebody else who represent himself.
▪ A judgment of suspension or disbarment is self-executory.
▪ NOTE: a disbarred lawyer can still be reinstated.
In Re Danilo De Guzman (2009)
De Guzman was disbarred for an issue regarding the 2003
Bar Examinations. Working as an assistant lawyer in the
Balgos & Perez, he leaked the exam questions to his fraternity
brothers thinking that they were just quizzers in a book
supposedly written by the examiner who was one of the
partners. He now prays that he be granted judicial clemency
and be reinstated as a member in good standing in the
Philippine Bar. He presented as evidence his track record in
public service that has been going on even before he entered
law school. After his disbarment, he worked as the consultant
of the City Government of Taguig and later, a member of the
Secretariat of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB).
It was coupled with testimonials and endorsements from
various individuals and entities all attesting to his good
character.
It is of no question that petitioner’s act in copying the exam
questions from Atty. Balgos’ computer without his
knowledge and consent and which questions later turned out
to be the Bar questions in Mercantile Law in the 2003 Bar
Examinations is not at all commendable. While we do believe
that petitioner sincerely did not intend to cause the damage
that his action ensued, still, he must be sanctioned for unduly
compromising the integrity of the bar examinations. The
petitioner has since reformed and has sincerely reflected on
his transgressions. Thus, in view of the circumstances and
likewise for the humanitarian considerations, the penalty of
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
disbarment may now be commuted to suspension. We deem
petitioner worthy of clemency to the extent of commuting his
penalty to 7 years of suspension, inclusive of the 5 years he
has already served his disbarment.
Factors to consider in reinstating disbarred lawyers:
1) Lapse of time (gaano na ba katagal nadisbar?)
2) Conduct before disbarment (Mabuti bang tao?)
3) Conduct after disbarment (nagpakita ba ng
pagsisisi?)
4) Ground/s for disbarment
5) Appreciation of error and repentance
6) Favorable endorsement of the IBP, church, etc.
IMMORALITY
▪ Passage of time does not legitimize illicit relationship; neither
does other people’s perceived tolerance or acquiescence or
indifference toward such relationship.
▪ Serial Womanizing → If for 10 years or more – ground for
disbarment.
▪ Marriage certificate is evidence na ikaw ay immoral. For purposes
of disbarment proceeding filed against the member of the bar, the
marriage certificates bearing the name of the lawyer are
competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed
bigamy which renders him unfit to continue as a member of the
bar. Respondent’s acts of committing bigamy twice constituted
grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. (Villatuya v.
Tabalingcos)
ADVICE TO CLIENTS
▪ Interestingly, Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised her clients
to approach the judge and plead for compassion so that their
motions would be granted. This admission corresponds to one of
14 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
Areola’s charges against Atty. Mendoza—that she told her clients
"Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo.
Malambot ang puso noon." Atty. Mendoza made it appear that
the judge is easily moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics such
as begging and crying in order for their cases to be dismissed.
Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible advices to her clients in
violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that "a lawyer shall
not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system." Rule 15.07 states that
"a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws
and the principles of fairness." (Areola v. Mendoza)
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION
▪ In any event, messages addressed to the members of the Court,
regardless of media or even of intermediary, in connection with
the performance of their judicial functions become part of the
judicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire Court.
The fact that said letters are not technically considered pleadings,
nor the fact that they were submitted after the main petition had
been finally resolved does not detract from the gravity of
contempt committed. The constitutional right of freedom of
speech or right to privacy cannot be used as a shield for
contemptuous acts against the Court. (Cagas v. COMELEC)
They form part of the public record and are not covered by the
rule on privacy of communications.
DEFAULT RULE OF CONDUCT FOR LAWYERS
▪ The default rule for the conduct of lawyers is presumption of good
faith. (Paguia v. Molina)
Every action of the lawyer carries with it the presumption of good
faith.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
CHAIRMAN’S CASES IN LEGAL ETHICS
Duty of lawyers to the clients
CARLOS LOPEZ vs ATTY. MILAGROS ISABEL CRISTOBAL
A.C. No. 12146. 10 October 2018.
Facts: Sometime in May 2011, Lopez engaged the services of Respondent
as his counsel in a pending civil case before the RTC-Makati.
Complainant immediately paid Respondent the amount of 35,000PhP as
acceptance fee for the engagement.
Subsequently, despite knowledge of the RTC’s directive for the parties to
file their respective position papers, Respondent failed in this regard; and
misrepresented to Complainant that she had already filed the same.
Respondent also failed to attend the hearings of the case, and deliberately
refused to communicate with Complainant. Thus, in a letter dated 5 March
2012, Complainant informed Respondent of his decision to stop her
engagement as his counsel and demanded that the latter: (1) prepare and
file her withdrawal of appearance in the case; and (2) the return of the
acceptance fee, in the amount of 35,000.00PhP.
Despite the written demand, Respondent did not file her withdrawal as
counsel for Complainant.
Issue: Whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct contrary to a
lawyer’s duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held: Yes, Respondent’s failure to file the required position paper and
her failure to properly withdraw from the case reveals Respondent’s
failure to live up to her duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures
of her oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The acts
committed by Respondent thus falls squarely within the prohibition of
Rules 18.3 and 18.04 of Canon 18, and Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the
Code, which provides:
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
15 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request
for information.
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 the lawyer pursue conduct, violative of these
canons and rules;
(c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best
interest of the client;
(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it
difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;
(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or
fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
(g) Other similar cases.
Canon 18 clearly mandates that a lawyer is duty-bound to competently
and diligently serve his client once the former takes up the latter's cause.
The lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed upon him. Hence, his neglect of a legal
matter entrusted to him amounts to inexcusable negligence for which he
must be administratively liable, as in this case. The Court finds no
credence to Atty. Cristobal's defense that her failure to prepare and file
the required position paper was justified because of Lopez' refusal to pay
her attorney's fees.
Rule 22.01, Canon 22 of the Code, on the other hand, provides that an
attorney may only retired from a case wither by written consent of his
client or by permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in which
event the attorney should see to it that the name of the new lawyer is
recorded in the case. A lawyer who desires to retire from an action without
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
the written consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in
court. He must serve a copy of his petition upon his client and the adverse
party at least three (3) days before the date set for hearing, otherwise the
court may treat the application as a "mere scrap of paper."
The circumstances of the case show that Respondent made no such move;
Respondent’s defense of discharge is self-serving. Respondent posits that
her return of the case records to Complainant as well as the latter’s
acceptance of 10,000.00PhP discharged her from her obligations as
counsel for Complainant – the Court disagrees. Respondent clearly
disregarded the mandate of Rule 22.01, Canon 22; she never sought the
written consent of Complainant, his client, or the permission of the Court.
Respondent also did not file a petition for withdrawal in court.
The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer requires sound judicial
discretion based on the surrounding facts. In similar cases where lawyers
neglected their clients' affairs and, at the same time, failed to return the
latter's money and/or property despite demand, the Court meted out the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law.
From the foregoing, the Court finds a six-month suspension from the
practice of law appropriate as penalty for Atty. Cristobal's misconduct.
While the Court has previously held that disciplinary proceedings should
only revolve around the determination of the respondent-lawyer's
administrative and not his civil liability, it must be clarified that this rule
remains applicable only to claimed liabilities which are purely civil in
nature – for instance, when the claim involves moneys received by the
lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and distinct and not
intrinsically linked to his professional engagement, such as the acceptance
fee.
(so pag hindi nagawa ang dapat gawin, dapat ibalik ang acceptance fee)
MARTIN J. SIOSON vs. ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR.
A.C. No. 12044, July 23, 2018
Facts: On February 20, 2014, Sioson went to the DOJ to follow up on his
case. He discovered that Atty. Apoya, Jr. had not filed an Entry of
16 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
Appearance in relation to his case. Sioson called Atty. Apoya, Jr. but the
latter's phone could not be reached. Sioson averred that Atty. Apoya, Jr.
thereafter continued to ignore his text messages.
Issue: Is there ethical transgressions made by the lawyer?
Held: Yes. The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty.
Apoya, Jr.'s refusal to return Sioson's money upon demand and his failure
to respond to Sioson's calls, text messages and letters asking for a status
update on the case filed before the DOJ reveal Atty. Apoya, Jr.'s failure
to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of his
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The acts committed by Atty. Apoya, Jr. thus fall squarely within the
prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 16.01 of Canon 16, and Rule
18.03 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal
processes. A lawyer, to the best of his ability, is expected to respect and
abide by the law, and thus, avoid any act or omission that is contrary to
the same. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks of his
character but it also inspires the public to likewise respect and obey the
law. Rule 1.01, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct to be
observed by all lawyers. Any act or omission that is contrary to, or
prohibited or unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or
disregards the law is unlawful. To this end, nothing should be done by any
member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree
the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the
profession.
The Court suspended Atty. Apoya for 6 months and ordered him to return
the money to the client.
Duties of a lawyer as a notary public
ROLANDO N. UY vs. ATTY. EDMUNDO J. APUHIN
A.C. No. 11826, September 05, 2018
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
Facts: Pumirma daw ng joint waiver sa harap ni attorney eh nasa Taiwan
naman ang mga affiants.
Ang defense ni respondent, as a notary public, it was not his task to inquire
into the whereabouts of his "clients" and that, insofar as the July 2, 2006
acknowledgement of the Joint Waiver was concerned, he merely
"[believed] the representation of the parties [that they were] members of
the same family" when the Joint Waiver was presented to him for
notarization.
Issue: Is the respondent liable?
Held: Yes. Suffice it to state that the notarization of a document is vested
with substantive public interest. Courts, administrative agencies and the
public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed
by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.
Consequently, acknowledgment of a document (i.e., the act of a person
who executed a deed, of going before a competent officer to declare the
same to be his act or deed) must be done in accordance with the
requirements of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Specifically, Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
requires that, in the acknowledgment of documents, an individual:
SECTION 1. x x x
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an
integrally complete instrument or document; xxx
Thus, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons
who signed the same are the very same persons who executed it and
personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what
are stated therein.
In fact, Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
clearly requires, among others, that: "[a] person shall not perform a
notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or
17 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
document x x x is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization."
Reliance on mere representations made by parties, without requiring the
presentation of competent evidence of identity, clearly runs counter to the
requirement of Sections 12(1) and (2), Rule II of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice, that evidence of competent identity must be:
SEC. 12. x x x
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official
agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the
instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the
notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two
credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document
or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to
the notary public documentary identification.
Contrary, however, to complainant’s position that Atty. Apuhin should be
disbarred, the Court believes that disbarment is too severe a penalty and
that the sanctions herein imposed already suffice.
Lawyer who appears in the proceedings before the Lupon
CELESTINO MALECDAN vs ATTY. SIMPSON BALDO
A.C. No. 12121. June 27, 2018
Facts: Complainant filed an administrative complaint against Respondent
for his alleged violation of Section 9 of P.D. 1508 (The Katarungang
Pambarangay Law), which prohibits the participation of lawyers in the
proceedings before the Lupon.
Respondent explained that he was permitted by the parties to participate
in the said hearing, to which Complainant vehemently objected.
Issue: Whether or not Respondent should be reprimanded instead of being
given a warning.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the findings and recommendation
of the IBP Board of Governors, as the language of P.D. 1508 is mandatory
in barring lawyers from appearing before the Lupon.
As stated in the case of Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, Section 9 of P.D.
1508 mandates personal confrontation of the parties because “a personal
confrontation between the parties without the intervention of a counsel or
representative would generate spontaneity and a favorable disposition to
amicable settlement on the part of the disputants. In other words, the said
procedure is deemed conducive to the successful resolution of the dispute
at the barangay level.”
Respondent’s violation of P.D. 1508 thus falls squarely within the
prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), which clearly mandates the obedience of every
lawyer to the laws and legal processes. A lawyer, to the best of his ability,
is expected to respect and abide by the law; and thus, avoid any act or
omission that is contrary to the same. A lawyer’s personal deference to
the law not only speaks of his character but it also inspires the public to
likewise respect and obey the law. Rule 1.01, on the other hand, states the
norm of conduct to be observed by all lawyers. Any act or omission that
is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or in defiance of,
disobedient to, or disregards the law is unlawful. Unlawful conduct does
not necessarily imply the element of criminality although the concept is
broad enough to include such element.
In the instant case, Respondent admitted that he appeared and participated
in the proceedings before the Punong Barangay in violation of Section 9
of P.D. 1508, and thus violated the aforesaid rule in connection of R 1.01
of the CPR. The Supreme Court finds Respondent liable and hold that the
latter be reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act would be dealt with more severity.
Lawyer who asks for pocket money from client
PELAGIO VICENCIO SORONGON, JR., vs. ATTY. RAMON Y.
GARGANTOS, SR.
A.C. No. 11326, June 27, 2018
18 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
Facts: The complainant alleged that he gave respondent the amount of
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) as full payment of the
latter's legal services, which, as allegedly agreed upon, would cover the
acceptance fee, appearance fees, and other fees until the resolution of the
cases. The complainant also alleged that respondent did not give him a
receipt nor did they execute a formal memorandum of agreement (MOA).
In addition, complainant narrated that they agreed that if there would be
court hearings outside of Quezon City, then complainant would provide
respondent's plane ticket, meals, and hotel accommodation. However,
should the hearing be at the Sandiganbayan, they would just meet in the
court.
On June 3, 2014, complainant called the respondent regarding the
scheduled hearings on June 4 and 5, 2014 at the Sandiganbayan. The
respondent instructed the complainant to pick him up at his residence in
Quezon City, otherwise he would not attend the hearing. The complainant
complied and they attended the hearing at the Sandiganbayan on June 4,
2014. After the hearing and on their way to respondent's residence, he
allegedly demanded "pocket money" from the complainant since he
would accompany his wife to the United States, otherwise, he would not
appear in the hearing the following day and he would no longer serve as
complainant’s counsel.
The next day, June 5, 2014, the complainant went again to the
respondent's residence to pick him up for the hearing. However, the
respondent allegedly asked him in a harsh voice,
"O ano? Dala ma ba yong hinihingi ko? Sinabi ka na s[a]yo
kahap[o]n kung di mo dala di ako sisipot sa hearing mo at
layasan kita."
When the complainant replied that he did not have the money, the
respondent allegedly shouted at him,
"Babaliktarin kita. Sasabihin ko na di mo ako binabayaran at
ipakukulong kita. Di mo ako kilala. Umalis [kana] at baka ano
pa ang mangyari s[a]yo. Pagdating mo mamaya sa
Sandiganbayan, sabihin at ikwento mo kung ano ang ginawa ko
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
s[a]yo, hindi na ako sisipot ngayong araw at magreresign na ako
bilang abagado mo."
Issue: Is the lawyer liable?
Held: Yes. Despite respondent's legal services having been allegedly paid
in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), which, as
allegedly agreed upon, was to cover the acceptance fee, appearance fees,
and other fees until the resolution of the cases, he allegedly abandoned his
client when the latter was not able to give him the "pocket money" he had
demanded.
We note that this is respondent's first offense, and we shall also take into
consideration his advanced age (i.e., he stated that he was already 82 years
old in his abovementioned handwritten letter dated November 6, 2014
addressed to Director Solis). We note that, in several cases, the Court, in
determining or tempering the penalty to be imposed, has considered
mitigating factors, such as the respondent's advanced age, health,
humanitarian and equitable considerations, as well as whether the act
complained of was respondent's first infraction.
In the present case, in view of the respondent's advanced age and the fact
that this is his first offense, respondent is hereby suspended from the
practice of law for six (6) months and warned that a repetition of the same
or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent should also
return the legal fees paid to him by the complainant in the amount of Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), and the documents in
respondent's possession which pertain to the case of the complainant.
Lawyer and their debts
ROMMEL N. REYES, COMPLAINANT, vs. ATTY. GERALD Z.
GUBATAN
A.C. No. 12839, November 03, 2020
Facts: Complainant and and Atty. Gubatan have been friends since they
were schoolmates in college and because of this friendship, he agreed to
lend money to Atty. Gubatan on six different occasions.
19 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
Despite the fact that the promissory notes and an acknowledgment/
agreement were all duly signed and executed by Atty. Gubatan, he failed
and refused to pay his obligations to Reyes and the Corporation.
On March 13, 2009, Reyes sent a demand letter to Atty. Gubatan
demanding the settlement of his loans amounting to ₱769,014.00
inclusive of interest. Atty. Gubatan still failed to pay.
Respondent claimed that when these instruments of indebtedness were
signed, he and Reyes agreed that the amounts stated therein would set off
against the former's compensation and professional fees for services
rendered to Reyes and the Corporation.
Held: The Court affirms the IBP's finding of administrative liability
against Atty. Gubatan, with modification as to the recommended penalty.
The relationship between lawyers and their clients is inherently imbued
with trust and confidence — and as true as any natural tendency goes, this
trust and confidence is susceptible to abuse. The rule prohibiting lawyers
from borrowing from their clients is intended to prevent the lawyer from
taking advantage of his influence over the client as the rule presumes that
the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all legal
maneuverings to renege on his obligation.
In this case, as correctly found by the IBP, there is no doubt that Atty.
Gubatan obtained several loans from Reyes and the Corporation, which
are evidenced by promissory notes and an acknowledgment/agreement.
These loans appear to have been contracted during the existence of a
lawyer-client relationship among the parties, when Atty. Gubatan was
employed by the Corporation and retained as legal consultant and special
assistant to the president. Consequently, Atty. Gubatan clearly violated
the following provisions of the CPR:
CANON 16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
his client that may come into his possession.
xxxx
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
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client
except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary
expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client. (Emphasis
supplied)
Further, in unduly borrowing money from Reyes and the Corporation and
refusing to pay the same, Atty. Gubatan abused the trust and confidence
reposed in him by his clients. In doing so, he failed to uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession, in contravention of Canon 7 of the
CPR, which provides:
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.
Indeed, a lawyer is entitled to protection against any attempt on the part
of a client to escape payment for legal services. However, any
disagreement as regards professional fees is not a matter that a lawyer
could simply take into his own hands, for there are proper legal steps to
be followed in order to recover his just due. Lawyers are not entitled to
unilaterally appropriate their clients' money for themselves by the mere
fact that the clients owe them attorney's fees. Hence, regardless of the
veracity of his claim of non-payment of professional fees, Atty. Gubatan
is not justified in refusing to pay his debts to Reyes and the Corporation.
In any event, the disposition of the instant administrative case is without
prejudice to any action that Atty. Gubatan may institute to collect his
professional fees.
Jurisprudence holds that the deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes
gross misconduct for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension
from the practice of law. In the instant case, the Court finds it proper to
impose on Atty. Gubatan the penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for three (3) months.
NO RETURN OF THE MONEY SHOULD BE ORDERED. The Court
notes that the IBP Board was correct in not including an order for the
return of the money borrowed by Atty. Gubatan from Reyes and the
Corporation since these loans were contracted in his private capacity.
Time-honored rule: A DISBARMENT CASE IS NOT A
COLLECTION CASE.
20 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
In Tria-Samonte v. Obias, the Court held that the "findings during
administrative-disciplinary proceedings have no bearing on the liabilities
of the parties involved which are purely civil in nature — meaning, those
liabilities which have no intrinsic link to the lawyer's professional
engagement — as the same should be threshed out in a proper proceeding
of such nature."
Lawyer must never be the cause of delays
ATTY. HONESTO ANCHETA CABARROGUIS vs. ATTY.
DANILO A. BASA
A.C. No. 8789, March 11, 2020
Facts: Atty. Cabarroguis alleged in his complaint that he was the retained
legal counsel of his friend, Godofredo V. Cirineo, Jr. (Godofredo), who
filed an estafa case against his sister-in-law, Erlinda Basa-Cirineo
(Erlinda) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch
11. Erlinda was represented by her brother, Atty. Basa. Atty. Cabarroguis
accused Atty. Basa of dilatory tactics when, after eight years of court trial,
Atty. Basa asked for the inhibition of the presiding judge, Hon. Renato
Fuentes (Judge Fuentes). After Judge Fuentes inhibited himself, all the
other presiding judges of the other regular RTCs to whom the case was
raffled, also inhibited themselves one after the other and for one reason or
another.
Allegedly, immature daw si atty! (HAHA) Atty. Cabarroguis further
alleged that Atty. Basa exhibited his immaturity on two occasions. First
was through an omnibus motion filed by Atty. Basa in a civil case on
behalf of his clients, Raul and Evelyn Molabola, where he repeatedly
spelled Atty. Cabarroguis' first name, Honesto, as "HONESTo." Second
was through a demand letter involving the same case in which Atty. Basa
purportedly misspelled the first name of Atty. Cabarroguis as "Honest."
Atty. Cabarroguis also alleged that in retaliation against him for being the
private prosecutor in the estafa case against Atty. Basa's sister, Erlinda,
Atty. Basa filed numerous administrative, civil, and criminal cases against
him which were all malicious and unfounded.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
Held: Atty. Basa is liable. The Court finds that Atty. Basa violated the
Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.03, Canon 8, Rule 8.01, Canon 12, Rules
12.02 and 12.04, and Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the CPR when he: (1) filed
baseless criminal suits against Atty. Cabarroguis; (2) poked fun at Atty.
Cabarroguis by deliberately misspelling his name in an omnibus motion;
and (3) caused delay in the estafa case after moving for the inhibition of
the presiding judge after eight years in trial. The Court agrees with the
original findings of the IBP that Atty. Basa employed harassing tactics
against Atty. Cabarroguis after he, on behalf of his client, filed an estafa
case against Atty. Basa's sister in 2002.
Atty. Basa, by all means, is given the liberty to defend his client's cause
with utmost zeal. This obligation, however, is not without reasonable
limitations. The filing of frivolous suits against his opposing counsel
manifests, at the very least, his gross indiscretion as a colleague in the
legal profession and his malicious desire to vex Atty. Cabarroguis. Atty.
Basa's act ultimately exhibits his intent to paralyze Atty. Cabarroguis
from exerting his utmost effort in protecting his client's interest. Verily,
the rendition of improper service by lawyers which does not meet the
strictest principles of moral law invites stern and just condemnation from
the Court because by doing so, they fail to advance the honor of their
profession and the best interests of their clients.
On misspelling the name of a fellow lawyer, in a long line of cases, the
Court has disciplined lawyers who resorted to clearly derogatory,
offensive, and virulent language against their opposing counsels, in
violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the CPR, viz.:
Canon 8 - a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and
candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
While it may be argued that the omnibus motion did not use language that
can easily be characterized as such, the Court finds Atty. Basa's method
underhanded, a subtle way of name-calling, and was improperly offensive
to Atty. Cabarroguis just the same. To the mind of the Court, the act of
Atty. Basa in poking fun at the name of Atty. Cabarroguis has traversed
21 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
these bounds and exhibited a conduct unbecoming of an officer of the
court.
On the motion to inhibit judges, while the Court will not presume to
evaluate the soundness of Judge Fuentes' discretion to inhibit from the
case, the Court finds it imperative to consider the unfortunate timing of
the filing of the motion, which was after the trial of the case had taken
eight years to conclude, as well as its bearing in light of the totality of the
other infractions of Atty. Basa which meant to vex and harass Atty.
Cabarroguis. The Court cannot likewise fail to observe how the inhibition
of Judge Fuentes led to five more inhibitions of the other judges to whom
the case was re-raffled, which thus ultimately presented the problem of
unavailability of a judge who would try and hear the case. Needless to
say, this turn of events caused untold delay in the resolution of the case to
the prejudice of Atty. Cabarroguis' client.
Atty. Basa is suspended for 6 months.
Relationship of lawyer with Judges
WILMA L. ZAMORA vs. ATTY. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY
A.C. No. 12622, February 10, 2020
Facts: On Motion for reconsideration, the lawyer stated, “Defendants are
furnishing a copy of this motion to the Court Administrator, as they
reserve to upgrade their above perceived violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct to a formal administrative complaint.”
Alleging that in the above motion for reconsideration, Atty. Mahinay
threatened the judge with an administrative complaint if he would not
grant the motion, Zamora filed a Complaint for disbarment against Atty.
Mahinay before the IBP for violation of Canon 11, Rule 11.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Held: The Court ruled that there is no basis to hold Atty. Mahinay liable.
Walang threat.
It is fundamental that the quantum of proof in administrative cases such
as disbarment proceedings is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable,
might conceivably opine otherwise. While Zamora is correct that the very
pleading itself is the best piece of evidence to prove whether Atty.
Mahinay had, indeed, violated Canon 11, Rule 11.03 of the CPR, the
Court finds that this proffered evidence failed to reach the threshold of the
quantum of proof required. The Court does not find the language used in
the subject motion for reconsideration to be offensive, abusive, malicious,
or intemperate in any way. It did not spill over the walls of decency or
propriety.
The Court finds nothing wrong with the aforementioned statement of the
subject pleading. It cannot be construed as either a direct or veiled threat
against Judge Medina that should he fail to rule in favor of Atty.
Mahinay's clients, they would file an administrative case against him.
All told, the Court finds that Atty. Mahinay did not unfairly criticize or
disrespect Judge Medina in any way. On the contrary, Atty. Mahinay had,
in fact, been circumspect in choosing the language he used in crafting his
motion for reconsideration. At most, he might have been overzealous in
defending his clients' cause, but this is not necessarily bad. The Court has
always been mindful of the lawyer's bounden duty to defend his client's
cause with utmost zeal for as long as he or she stays within the limits
imposed by professional rules. Atty. Mahinay did not overstep these
limits.
CARMELITA CANETE vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO PUTI
AC. No. 10949, Aug 14, 2019
Facts: In her complaint, Canete claimed that her husband was a victim in
a criminal case for kidnapping for ransom with double murder filed
against Atty. Puti's client. Canete averred that Atty. Puti had, in numerous
occasions, appeared in court while he was intoxicated and made
discourteous and inappropriate remarks against the public and private
prosecutors as well as the judge.
Canete claimed that Atty. Puti provoked her private counsel, Atty. Arturo
Tan (Atty. Tan), by calling him "bakla" in open court during the hearing
on May 9, 2013.
22 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
Held: Allegations of intoxication were dismisses for being unfounded.
On the utterance of “bakla”: To recall, Atty. Puti called Atty. Tan "bakla"
in a condescending manner. To be sure, the term "bakla" (gay) itself is not
derogatory. It is used to describe a male person who is attracted to the
same sex. Thus, the term in itself is not a source of offense as it is merely
descriptive. However, when "bakla" is used in a pejorative and
deprecating manner, then it becomes derogatory. Such offensive language
finds no place in the courtroom or in any other place for that matter. Atty.
Puti ought to be aware that using the term "bakla" in a derogatory way is
no longer acceptable — as it should have been in the first place. Verily,
in Sy v. Fineza, the Court ruled that the respondent judge's act of ruling
that a witness should not be given any credence because he is a "bakla"
was most unbecoming of a judge.
As against the public prosecutors, Atty. Puti made the following
statement: "Bakit 2 kayong prosecutor? Malaki siguro bayad sa inyo."
Such remark was clearly unprofessional, especially since Atty. Puti used
to be a public prosecutor. By nonchalantly accusing the prosecutors of
having been bribed or otherwise acting for a valuable consideration, Atty.
Puti overstepped the bounds of courtesy, fairness, and candor which he
owes to the opposing counsels.
For his statements against the private and public prosecutors, Atty. Puti
violated the following provisions under the Code of Professional
Responsibility:
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and
candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper.
As regards the final ground, the TSN of the May 22, 2013 hearing shows
that Atty. Puti made several remarks against the judge. Specifically, Atty.
Puti stated in open court that the judge was abusing his discretion and
implied that the judge was partial and biased. Moreover, Atty. Puti
threatened the judge that he would withdraw from the case and walk out
if his request was not granted. Again, such statements were improper.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
While a lawyer, as an officer of the court, has the right to criticize the acts
of courts and judges, the same must be made respectfully and through
legitimate channels. In this case, Atty. Puti violated the following
provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility:
CANON 11 -A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by
others.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not
supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
While Atty. Puti is found to have violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility, suspension from the practice of law is not a commensurate
penalty. Court REPRIMANDS him with STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
PRESIDING JUDGE AIDA ESTRELLA MACAPAGAL,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 195, PARAÑAQUE CITY vs.
ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG
A.C. No. 9298, July 29, 2019
Facts: In a letter-complaintdated November 10, 2011 addressed to Deputy
Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant, Atty. Layusa, Presiding Judge
Macapagal, RTC Br. 195, Parañaque City alleged that on even date, she
received a letter from respondent Atty. Young, threatening her that an
administrative and a criminal complaint for "knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment" would be filed against her if the writ of possession/writ
of demolition would be implemented.
This was in connection with a pending complaint for expropriation filed
by the City of Parañaque against Magdiwang Realty Corporation and
Fil-Homes Realty Development Corporation.
Held: Atty. Young is liable. Merong threat.
23 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”

After much consideration, the Court finds Atty. Young's act of sending
the subject letter to Judge Macapagal highly improper. Moreover, as
shown in the following portion of the subject letter, there is no question
that Atty. Young did threaten to file administrative and criminal
complaints against Judge Macapagal if the writ of demolition was
implemented:

x x x with all due respect, but much to our regret, we wish to make
manifest that we will be compelled to file an administrative
complaint against you before the Office of the Court
Administrator as well as a criminal complaint for "knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment" if you should persist in your
stubborn actuation of implementing the writ of possession/writ of
demolition against non-parties to the expropriation case.

These statements, in the mind of the Court, indubitably demonstrate how

Atty. Young had failed to observe the respect due to the Courts and to
judicial officers. While he denied in his motion for reconsideration that
he criticized Judge Macapagal, the Court finds otherwise. In Pantanosas,
Jr. v. Pamatong, the Court reiterated that while lawyers have the right,
both as officers of the court and as citizens, to criticize in properly
respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and
judges, such criticisms, no matter how truthful, shall not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety.

Further, while the Court agrees with the Board that Atty. Young violated
Canon 11 of the CPR, it deems it appropriate to lower the penalty to
reprimand, considering that this is his first offense and in view of his
advanced age. In determining the penalty to be imposed, the Court
considers the facts and factors which may serve as mitigating
circumstances, such as the respondent's acknowledgment of his or her
infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, respondent's
advanced age, humanitarian and equitable considerations, among others.

Atty. Walter T. Young is hereby adjudged GUILTY of violating Canon

11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he is hereby
REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes) 24 of 32

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Note: In answering case problems, always invoke the lawyer’s oath,
together with the appropriate canon and rule violated, and the basis for
penalty of suspension or disbarment.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof generally rests upon the
complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case
against a respondent must be established by clear. Convincing, and
satisfactory proof. Likewise, in case a complainant withdraws his
complaint against an erring lawyer, the case would still proceed.
GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION AND DISBARMENT
(RULE 138, SECTION 27)
A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any:
1) Deceit,
2) Malpractice (The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice)
3) Other gross misconduct in such office,
4) Grossly immoral conduct, or
5) By reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
or
6) For any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
the admission to practice, or
7) For a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,
or
8) For corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority so to do.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
Practice of law is any activity in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience.
Generally, to practice law is to give advice or to render any kind of
service, which advice or service requires the use of any degree of legal
knowledge or skill. Hence, the Supreme Court declared that a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur, a lawyer-negotiator
of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor are engaged
in the practice of law (Cayetano v. Monsod).
When a suspended lawyer continues to practice law, despite being
suspended or disbarred, he is engaged in an unauthorized practice of law.
The practice of law is not a property right, but a mere privilege, and as
such must bow to the interest of regulatory power of the Court to exact
compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities (In Re: Edillon).
Also, involves cases when a secretary or an individual not entitled to
practice law is tasked to sign on behalf of a lawyer legal document (Tapay
v. Jarder).
Legal Bases in Answering:
Canon 1 - a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 9 - a lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the
unauthorized practice of law.
Rule 9.01 - a lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person
the performance of any task which by law may only be performed
by a member of the bar in good standing.
25 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
FALSIFICATION IN APPLICATION TO THE ADMISSION TO
THE BAR
An individual must possess all the qualifications provided for by the law
to be admitted to the bar to the Bar. There are also some qualifications,
which must be continuously required from a lawyer, such as but not
limited to possession of good moral character.
Legal Bases in Answering:
Canon 1 - a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 7 - a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
integrated bar.
Rule 7.01 - a lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a
false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with
his application for admission to the bar.
Rule 7.02 - a lawyer shall not support the application for
admission to the bar of any person known by him to be
unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant
attributes.
ISSUING BOUNCING CHECKS
The issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been
drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust
and confidence reposed on him. It shows a lack of personal honesty and
good moral character, as to render him unworthy of public confidence
(Ong v. de los Santos)
When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose,
the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
money was spent for that particular purpose. And if he does not use the
money for the intended purpose. The lawyer must immediately return the
money to his client (Dizon v. De Taza).
Legal Bases in Answering:
Canon 1 - a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
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 7.03 - 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.
BORROWING MONEY FROM CLIENT
Time and again, the Court has consistently held that deliberate failure to
pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be
sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are
instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal
system. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency, but also
a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the
people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.
In Foster v. Agtang, the Court cannot order the respondent to return the
money he borrowed from the complainant in his private capacity. The
Court held that it cannot order the lawyer to return money to the
complainant if he or she acted in a private capacity because its findings in
administrative cases have no bearing on liabilities which have no intrinsic
link to the lawyer’s professional engagement. In disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still
fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. The only concern of
26 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
the Court is the determination of respondent’s administrative liability. Its
findings have no material bearing on other judicial actions which the
parties may choose against each other.
Legal Bases in Answering:
Canon 16 - a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties
of his client that may come into his profession.
Rule 16.01 - a lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02 - a lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate
and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03 - a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his
client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien
over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be
necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien
to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured
for his client as provided for in the rules of court.
Rule 16.04 - a lawyer shall not borrow money from his client
unless the client's interest are fully protected by the nature of the
case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money
to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
PRACTICE OF LAW AS A BUSINESS
The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to
public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not
primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and the law advocacy is
not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of livelihood
should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration for lawyers,
who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
themselves (Brunet v. Guaren).
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
Legal Basis in Answering:
Canon 17 - a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 - a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.
INACTION/FAILURE TO PROVIDE SERVICE
Once a lawyer takes up the causes of his client, he is duty bound to serve
his client with competence, and to attend to his clients’s cause with
diligence, care, and devotion, regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee
of for free (Pichon v. Agleron).
Legal Basis in Answering:
Canon 17 - a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 - a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
In the case of Gimeno v. Zaide, the Court laid down the tests to determine
if a lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting interests between and
among his clients.
One of these tests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would
prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing
in the performance of that duty.
Another test is whether a lawyer would be called upon in the new relation
to use against a former client any confidential information acquired
through their connection or previous employment.
Legal Basis in Answering:
27 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
Canon 15 - a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in
all his dealings and transactions with his clients.
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.
GROSS IMMORAL CONDUCT (Bigamy, womanizing, etc)
A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct showing any
fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor.” 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. Respondent’s subsequent marriage during the subsistence of
his previous one definitely manifests a deliberate disregard of the sanctity
of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and
affirmed by our laws. By his own admission, Respondent made a mockery
out of the institution of marriage, taking advantage of his legal skills in
the process. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality
required of him as a member of the bar, which thus warrant the penalty of
disbarment. (Perez v. Catindig; Ecraela v. Pangalangan).
Legal Basis in Answering:
Canon 1 - a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
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.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
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.
ENTERING IN A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
In the practice of law, lawyers constantly formulate compromise
agreements for the benefit of their clients. Article 1878 of the Civil Code
provides that "special powers of attorney are necessary in the following
cases: xxx (3) To compromise, to submit questions to arbitration, to
renounce the right to appeal from a judgment, to waive objections to the
venue of an action or to abandon a prescription already acquired."
In line with the fiduciary duty of the Members of the Bar, Section 23, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court specifies a stringent requirement with respect
to compromise agreements, to wit:
Sec. 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. - Attorneys have
authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in
relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all
matters of ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without
special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive
anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in
cash (Sison v Camacho).
Legal Basis in Answering:
Canon 1 - a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 16 - a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties
of his client that may come into his profession.
Rule 16.01 - a lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.
28 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”

UPHOLD THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION: Legal Basis in Answering:

Violation of Notarial Practice: Time and again, this Court has stressed that Canon 1 - a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is invested the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.
with substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or
Rule 1.01 - a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
authorized may act as notaries public. It must be emphasized that the act
of notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a immoral or deceitful conduct.
public document making that document admissible in evidence without
Canon 7 - a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must
integrated bar.
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
their duties (In Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice). Under the
Canon 13 - a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and
rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform
refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives
notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted
the appearance of influencing the court.
the commission.

Legal Basis in Answering: COURTESY TOWARDS FELLOW LAWYERS:

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
Canon 1 - a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
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.
IMPROPRIETY IN DEALINGS (BRIBERY, ETC.)
The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration
of justice. To that end, their clients’ 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 (Jimenez v Verano).
Use of abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language: A lawyer must
at all times, whether in public or private life, act in a manner beyond
reproach especially when dealing with fellow lawyers.
Though a lawyer's language may be forceful and emphatic, it should
always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has
no place in the dignity of the judicial forum.
Legal Basis in Answering:
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 7.03 - 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.

2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes) 29 of 32

 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
Canon 8 - a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness
and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
FAIRNESS TO FELLOW LAWYERS:
Encroachment: A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the
subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less
should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but
should deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most
particularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not
represented by counsel, and he should not undertake to advise him as to
the law (Binay-An v. Addog)
Legal Basis in Answering:
Canon 8 - a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness
and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
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.
CANDOR TOWARDS THE COURT
A lawyer owes utmost honesty towards all his dealings with the courts.
He must not file false and frivolous legal documents, such as affidavits
(Umaguing v. De Vera).
Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and has to observe and maintain the
rule of law as well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is
by no means a coincidence, therefore, that the core values of honesty,
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
integrity, and trustworthiness are emphatically reiterated by the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Legal Basis in Answering:
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.
RESPECT TOWARDS THE COURT
The right to criticize, which is guaranteed by the freedom of speech and
of expression in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, must be exercised
responsibly, for every right carries with it a corresponding obligation.
Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom with
responsibility (In Re: Kapunan).
Well-recognized therefore is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of
the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and
through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.
Hence, as a citizen and as officer of the court, a lawyer is expected not
only to exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to avail of such
right. No law may abridge this right. Nor is he professionally answerable
for a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which would not
expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen.
But 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, on the one hand, and abuse and
slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. 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.
30 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”
The test for criticizing a judges decision is, therefore, whether or not the
criticism is bona fide or done in good faith, and does not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety (Habawel v CTA).
It is indirect contempt of court, when an individual’s predisposition is to
indiscriminately file administrative complaints against members of the
Judiciary. We held that this conduct degrades the judicial office, interferes
with the due performance of their work for the Judiciary, and thus
constitutes indirect contempt of court (In Re: Verified Complaint of
Merdegia).
Direct Contempt is committed in the court's presence or so near the court,
while Indirect Contempt is not committed within or near the court's
presence. Nonetheless, direct contempt may be committed through
pleadings.
Direct Contempt is punished summarily. This means a judge (or justice)
can immediately cite an offending person in direct contempt and mete out
the punishment for it. An offender has to go through due process before
being cited for indirect contempt. The power to punish contempt of court
is exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, and
only occasionally should a court invoke its inherent power to punish
contempt of court in order to retain that respect without which the
administration of justice must falter or fail.
Legal Basis in Answering:
Canon 1 - a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.
Canon 11 - a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due
to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 - a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the courts.
2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes)
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:
Submission of False Certification of Forum Shopping: Separate from the
proscription against forum shopping is the violation of the certification
requirement against forum shopping.
There is a difference in the treatment between failure to comply with the
certification requirement and violation of the prohibition against forum
shopping not only in terms of imposable sanctions but also in the manner
of enforcing them. The former constitutes sufficient cause for the
dismissal without prejudice to the filing of the complaint or initiatory
pleading upon motion and after hearing, while the latter is a ground for
summary dismissal thereof and for direct contempt.
The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the
acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate
forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions (Crisostomo v. Nazareno)
Legal Basis in Answering:
Canon 1 - a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
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.
Canon 12 - a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
31 of 32
 “When the time is right, I, the Lord will make it happen.”

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

DELAYING PROCEEDINGS

As an officer of the court, a lawyer is part of the machinery in the

administration of justice. A lawyer should not only help attain the speedy,
efficient, impartial, correct, and inexpensive adjudication of cases and
prompt satisfaction of final judgments, but should likewise avoid any
unethical or improper practices that may impede, obstruct, or prevent the
realization of a speedy and efficient administration of justice (De Los
Santos II v. Barbosa).

Legal Basis in Answering:

Canon 1 - a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of

the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.

Rule 1.01 - a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.

Canon 12 - a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his

duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Rule 12.03 - a lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time

to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse
without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his
failure to do so.

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

2022 Lecture on Legal Ethics by DC Erickson Balmes (with additional notes) 32 of 32