Legal Ethics

Canon 3 – A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statements of facts.

Bar Exam 2002 – III-A (Ethical or Unethical)

- A calling card 2x2 in size, bearing his name in bold print, office, residence and
email addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers?
o Ethical-a lawyer in making his legal services, shall use only true, honest,
fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
Bar Exam 2002 – III-B (Ethical or Unethical)
- A business card 3x4 in size, indicating the aforementioned data with his photo
1x1 in size
o Unethical-the size of the card and the inclusion of the lawyer’s photo in it
smacks of commercialism.
Bar Exam 2002 – III-E (Ethical or Unethical)
- A small announcement in BALITA, a tabloid in Filipino, that the attorney is giving
free legal advice for September 2002.
o Unethical-the announcement in a newspaper that he will give free
legal advise to the indigent, is a form of self-praise (In Re Tagorda)

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. (Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., 233 SCRA 378, 1993)
o In re: Tagorda
 Member of Provincial board of Isabela
 Admitted that in the last general elections, he made use of a card
 Card written in Spanish and Ilokano
 Attorney/Notary Public
 Candidate for Third Member (Isabela)
 Note:
o As notary public, he can execute for you a deed of
sale for the purchase of land as required by the
cadastral office;
o can renew lost documents of your animals;
o can make your application and final requisites for your
homestead; and can execute any kind of Affidavit.
o As a lawyer he can help you collect your loans
although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or
against you.
o Come or write to him in his town Echague, Isabela.
o He offers free consultation, and is willing to help and
serve the poor
– It is unethical for a lawyer to resort to advertisement as a merchant would
advertise his wares (Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, 74 Phil. 579)
 o Dir. of Religious Affairs v. Bayot
 Advertised in the newspaper that he helps in securing marriage
licenses without delay and publicity; makes marriage
arrangements; free legal consultations for the poor; everything is
confidential
 Initially denied the publication, but later on admitted the same and
asked for the court’s mercy

Rule 3.02
– In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be
used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible
provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is
deceased.
o Bar Exam 1996 – 6-1
 May a law firm use the name of a deceased partner? Qualify.
 Rule 3.02 of the Code of Professional responsibility provides
in part that “The continued use of the name of a deceased
partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all
its communications that said partner is deceased” However,
several justices of the Supreme Court dissented from this
rule.
o Bar Exam 1994 – 3
 The law firm of Rodriguez, Delfin and Zafra had been in existence
for almost 25 years and had built up an excellent reputation and a
well-heeled clientele. Sometime last year Partner Zafra died of
coronary disease but Rodriguez and Delfin refused to drop his
name from the firm name May Rodriguez and Delfin insist on
keeping the name of Zafra as part of the firm name?
 Yes, they may continue to use the name of Zafra in the firm
name, provided that they indicate in all communications that
he is deceased. Rule 3.02 of the code of professional
responsibility that the continued name of a deceased partner
is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all
communication that the said partner passed away.
o Dacanay v. Baker & Mckenzie
 Atty. Adriano Dacanay sought to enjoin Collas, Jr., Guerrero,
Torres, Evangelista, Jr., Salonga, Sandejas, Nunag, Tesoro, Kwan,
and Curammeng, Jr.
 Baker and McKenzie, lawfirm organized in Illinois
 Collas, Jr., Guerrero, Torres, Evangelista, Jr., Salonga, Sandejas,
Nunag, Tesoro, Kwan, and Curammeng, Jr. members or associates
of Baker and McKenzie
 Torres used letterhead of Baker and McKenzie asking Rosie
Clurman to release 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc.
to H.E. Gabriel (Client of B&M)
  Using the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes representation
that being associated with the firm, they could “render legal
services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises
and other engaged in foreign trade and investment”
 Unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practice
law in the Philippines.

Rule 3.03
– Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdrawal from the firm and his
name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice
law currently.

Rule 3.04
– A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass
media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.
o Bar Exam 2002 – III-C
 A pictorial press release in a broadsheet newspaper made by the
attorney showing him being congratulated by the president of a
client corporation for winning a multimillion damage suit against the
company in the Supreme Court.
 Unethical-a lawyer should not resort to indirect advertising
such as procuring his photograph to be published in a
newspaper in connection with a case he is handling. He
should not pay or give something of value to representatives
of the mass media in anticipation of, or return for publicity to
attract legal business (Rule 3.04 Code of Professional
Responsibility).
o Bar Exam 2002 – III-D
 The same press release made by his client in a tabloid.
 Ethical-The lawyer can no longer be held responsible for the
action of his client. However, it would be unethical if he knew
that his client’s intention to publish it and not to stop it.

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.
- Bar Exam 2004 – I-A3
o Principal Obligation of a Lawyer towards the development if the legal
system?
 Canon 4 and Canon 5
- Bar Exam 2004 – I-A4
o Principal Obligation of a Lawyer towards the administration of justice?
 Canon 4 and Canon 12 (Speedy and Efficient
Administration of Justice)
- BAR MATTER 850 (October 2, 2001) – MCLE
 o It is a program which requires lawyers to show proof of having undertaken
improvement in their legal knowledge as a precondition for renewing their
license to practice.

CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,

PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE
PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE
LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
- Bar Exam 2004 – I-A3
o Principal Obligation of a Lawyer towards the development if the legal
system?
- BAR MATTER 850 (October 2, 2001) – MCLE
o Purpose
 Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their career,
they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics
of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT

SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
- May a former government lawyer appear in a case against the government?
o Yes, he/she may appear in a case against the government unless there is
a specific ethical rule or provision of law which prohibits him/her from
doing so.
- When may a former government lawyer be prohibited from accepting a legal
engagement?
o A lawyer shall not after leaving the government service accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he/she
had intervened while in said service
o Retired members of the judiciary receiving pensions from the government
should not practice law where the government is the adverse party or in a
criminal case involving a government employee in the performance of his
duties as such

Rule 6.01
- The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but
to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of
witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
- Bar Exam 2001 – XVI
- Bar Exam 1992 – 2
 - In criminal cases, a public prosecutor should be present for the following
reasons:
o To protect the interest of the State. (as the criminal case is in reality a
crime done against the state)
o To see to it that justice is done. (Rule 6.01) Naturally the private
prosecutor is interested only to convict the accused. However, the primary
duty of the public prosecutor is not to convict but to see that justice is
done.
- Suarez v. Platon
o Suarez riding train and vocal about abuses of government. Lt. Orais
arrested Suarez and charged him with Sedition. Orais moved for dismissal
of case upon orders of superior
o Suarez filed against Orais for arbitrary detention. Provincial Fiscal Valdez
moved for dismissal due to inssuficient evidence. Valdez asked to inhibit.
Yamzon replaced Valdez. Yamzon also found insufficiency of Evidence.
Judge Platon Dismissed the case.
o Suarez appealed but was denied, proper remedy is Mandamus
o Suarez filed Mandamus.
o Fiscals are well within their rights not to push through with the case if they
find the evidence to be insufficient. Duty is not to win a case, but see to it
that justice shall be done.
-

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.
- Omar Ali v. Atty. Mosib Bubong
o Register of Deeds of Marawi City
o Off-shoot of admin case for illegal exaction, indiscriminate issuance of
TCT (in the names of the Baudali Datus), manipulating criminal complaint
for violation of anti-squatting law.
o Baudali Datus are relatives of Mosib Bubong
o LRA Absolved
o DOJ (Drilon) exonerated illegal exaction and infidelity in custody of docs,
but found guilty of grave misconduct in impudent issuance of TCT and
manipulating criminal complaint for violation of anti squatting law
 Recommended dismissal from service
o OP (Ramos) issued AO 41 adopting in toto Drilon Report.
o WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Mosib A. Bubong is hereby DISBARRED
and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a
copy of this Decision be entered in the respondent's record as a member
of the Bar, and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to
all courts in the country.
Rule 6.03
- A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in
said service.
- Bar Exam 1992 – 3
- PCGG v. Sandigan Bayan Et. Al.
o 1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial
difficulties. Central
o Bank extendedloans to Genbank in the hope of rehabilitating it (P310M).
Nonetheless, Genbank
o failed to recover.
o 1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of Genbank’s
assets was held with the
o Lucio TanGroup winning the bid. Solicitor General Mendoza,
representing the government,
o intervened with theliquidation of Genbank.
o 1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten
wealth of Marcos, his
o family andcronies.
o 1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people
(basta marami sila). In
o relation to thiscase, PCGG issued several writs of sequestration
on properties allegedly acquired by the respondents bytaking
advantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos.
Sandiganbayan heard the case. Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General
during the time of Marcos) represented the respondents.
o 1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his
participation in the liquidation of Genbank. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is
one of the properties that PCGG is seeking to be sequestered from the
Lucion Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
o Sandiganbayan denied PCGG’s motion. According to the Sandiganbayan,
Mendoza did not
o take an adverseposition to that taken on behalf of the Central
Bank. And Mendoza’s
o appearance as counsel was beyondthe 1 year prohibitory period since he
retired in 1986.
o Issue:
o W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to
Estelito Mendoza
o Held:
o No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed.
 o The matter (see 3rdnote), or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is
advising the Central
o Bank on how toproceed with the liquidation of Genbank. This is not the
“matter” contemplated
o by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
o The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from
the matter involved in
o thePCGG case against the Lucio Tan group.
o The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and
important. The role of
o Mendoza inthe liquidation of Genbank is considered insubstantial.
o SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the
motion to disqualify
o Mendoza.Apparently, PCGG already lost a lot of cases against Mendoza.
Kyle’s interpretation:
o PCGG getting desperate
o Concurring Opinions:
o Panganiban & Carpio: the congruent interest prong of Rule 6.03 should
have a prescriptive
o period
o Tinga: Rule 6.03 cannot apply retroactively to Mendoza (when he was
Solicitor General, no
o Rule 6.03 yet)
o Bottom line, they are all questioning the unfairness of the rule if applied
without any prescriptive
o periodand if applied retroactively

Cases
- Uy v. Capulong
o Capulong rendered decision in Probate proceeding. Cancelled Titles of
Jose Uy
o CA reversed and enjoined Capulong
o Capulong proceeded to hear the matter and favored Administratix Alvos
o SC affirmed CA Decision
o Capulong argued that CA did not prohibit her from hearing the case
o Gross ignorance and misconduct. Judges cannot adjudicate adverse
claims of a property in a probate proceeding. Jurisdiction of court of
general jurisdiction.
- Trovela v. Robles
o
- Mapalad, Sr. v. Echanez
o
- Pasok v. Zapatos
o