Contents

a. Lawyer’s Oath.................................................................................................................................3
1. Rufina Luy Lim v. Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza,.................................................3
2. Verlita V. Mercullo and Raymond Vedan v. Atty. Marie Frances
E.Ramon, A.C. no. 11078, July 19, 2016......................................................................9
3. Petition For Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M.
Dacanay, Petitioner...............................................................................................................10
b. Introduction...........................................................................................................................11
a. Legal Ethics (Code of Professional Responsibility).....................................11
b. Judicial Ethics (A.M. no. 03-05-01-SC, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary).......................................................................................................................20
c. Definition of Terms................................................................................................................27
i. Bar and Bench...................................................................................................................27
ii. Lawyer and Trial lawyer..........................................................................................27
iii. Attorney-at-Law and Attorney-in-fact............................................................27
iv. Counsel de officio and Attorney of record....................................................32
v. Lead counsel and Collaborating counsel........................................................32
vi. Amicus Curiae and Expert witness....................................................................32
vii. Practice of Law.......................................................................................................................32
c. Practice of Law (Rule 138, Rules of Court)..............................................................33
4. Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane v. Judge Medel Belen,............................................33
5. Eduardo B. Manalang v. Atty. Cristina Benosa Buendia,.......................34
6. Cayetano v Monsod....................................................................................................38
a. Power of the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law (par. 5,
Sec. 5,Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)..........................................................................38
7. In re: Cunanan..............................................................................................................38
8. In re: Lanuevo..............................................................................................................38
9. Oscar B. Pimentel, et.al. v. Legal Education Board as
representedby its Chairperson, Hon. Emerson B. Aquende, and LEB
member Hon. Zenaida N. Elepaño,................................................................................38
b. Revised Law Student Practice Rule (A.M. 19-03-24-SC), (Rule 138-
A) 39
c. Qualifications for Admission to the Bar (Bar Matter No. 1153).....................................................41
10. Mercuria D. So v. Ma. Lucille P. Lee, B.M. No. 3288, April 10,201941
11. Diao v. Martinez, 7 SCRA 475...............................................................................41
d. Who may Practice Law...................................................................................................................41
12. In Re: Petition to Sign on the Roll of Attorneys, Michael A.
Medado, Petitioner B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013.................................41
13. Aguirre v. Rana B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003, 451 SCRA 428...............................................41
e. Duties of an Attorney (Sec. 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court)..............................................................41
f. Judicial and Bar Council (Section 8 & 9, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)........................................41
 14. Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose
C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno G. R. No. 237428, May11, 2018. 42
d. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Rule 139-A), (P.D. 181).................................................................42
15. Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, A.C. No.4749,
January 20, 2000....................................................................................................................43
16. Vidalyn Yamon-Leach v. Atty. Arturo B. Astorga, A.C. No. 5987, August 28, 2019.................43
17. Manuel Valin and Honorio L. Valin v. Atty. Rolando T. Ruiz, A.C. No. 10564, November 7,
2017 43
18. Emma T. Dantes v. Atty. Crispin G. Dantes, A.C. No. 6486,September 22, 2004....................43
19. Jerry M. Palencia v. Atty. Pedro Linsangan, Atty. Gerard M.Linsangan, and Atty. Glenda M.
Linsangan-Binoya, A.C. No.10557, July 10, 2018...............................................................................43
20. Wilfredo Catu v. Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738,February 19, 2008.........................43
21. In re: Ramon Galang, 66 SCRA 282.........................................................................................43
22. Joselano Guevarra v Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala, A.C. no. 7136,.............................................43
23. Gimeno v Atty. Zaide, A.C. 10303, April 22, 2015..................................................................43
24. Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares v. Atty. Roberto “Argee” C.Guevarra, A.C. No. 11394,
December 1, 2016.............................................................................................................................43
25. Tapay v. Atty. Bancolo, et.al., A.C. No. 9604, March 20, 2013...............................................43
26. Tolentino v. Atty. Millado and Atty. Sibayan, A.C. No. 10737,November 9, 2015..................43
27. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., Employees Association v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., G.R.
No. L-25291, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 244.....................................................................................43
28. Zaldivar v. Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316.......................................................................................43
29. In Re: Almacen, G.R. no. L-27654, February 18, 1970............................................................43
30. Monticillo v. Gica 60 SCRA 235..............................................................................................43
31. People v Jardin 124 SCRA 167................................................................................................43
32. Garcia v Francisco, A.C. No. 3923, March 30, 1993................................................................43
33. Re: Show cause order in the decision dated May 11, 2018 in G.R.No. 237428 (Republic of the
Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P.A. sereno) A.M.
No.18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018...........................................................................................................43
34. Ruel Tuano y Hernandez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.205871, September 28, 2016
43
35. Norma and Josephine G. Umali v. People of the Philippines, G.R.No. 211917, February 27,
2017 43
36. Joy T. Samonte v. Atty. Vivencio V. jumamil, A.C. no. 11668, July 17, 2017...........................43
37. Paces Industrial Corporation v Atty. Edgardo M. Salandanan, A.C. No. 1346, July 25, 2017..43
38. Mabini Colleges, Inc. v. Pajarillo, A.C. No. 10687, July 22, 2015............................................43
39. Aquino v. Cabasa, G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015...........................................................43
40. Heirs of Juan de Dios E. Carlos v. Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan, A.C.No. 11494, July 24, 2017.....43
41. Atty. Agustin v. Cruz-Herrera, G.R. No. 174564, February 12,2014........................................43
42. Atty. Roxas v. Republic Real Estate Corp., G.R. No. 208205, June1, 2016..............................43
43. Heirs of Sixto L. Tan, Sr., represented by Recto A. Tan v. Atty.Nestor B. Beltran, A.C. No.
5819, February 1, 2017......................................................................................................................43
44. Marilou Balabas, et. al. v. Roberto L. Uy Realty & DevelopmentCorporation, G.R. No.
187544, October 3, 2016...................................................................................................................43
45. People v Sy Juco, 64 Phil 667.................................................................................................43
46. Go v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 165...................................................................................43
47. Sabitsana Jr. v. Villamor, 202 SCRA 445.................................................................................43
48. Borromeo v. Mariano, 41 Phil 322.........................................................................................43
49. Arban v. Birja, 143 SCRA 634..................................................................................................44
50. Abad v. Bleza, 145 SCRA 1......................................................................................................44
51. Jacinto v. Vallarta, 453 SCRA 83.............................................................................................44
52. Masangacay v. Aggabao, 238 SCRA 427.................................................................................44
53. Cabrera v. Pajares, 142 SCRA 127..........................................................................................44
54. OCA v. Judge Hermoso, 150 SCRA 278...................................................................................44
55. Martinez v. Pahimulin, 116 SCRA 136....................................................................................44
56. Tan, Jr. v. Gallardo, 73 SCRA 315............................................................................................44
57. Felongco v. Dictado, 223 SCRA 696........................................................................................44
58. Datuin, Jr. v. Soriano, 391 SCRA 2..........................................................................................44
59. Palang v. Zosa, 58 SCRA 776..................................................................................................44
60. Pimentel v. Salanga, 21 SCRA 160..........................................................................................44
61. Geotina v. Gonzales, 41 SCRA 69...........................................................................................44
62. Oktubre v. Valano, 434 SCRA 636..........................................................................................44
63. Dayuno v. Barillo, 472 SCRA 218............................................................................................44
64. Padilla v. Zantua, Jr., 237 SCRA 670.......................................................................................44
65. J. King and Sons v. Hontanosas, Jr., 438 SCRA 527.................................................................44
66. Carual v. Brusala, 317 SCRA 54..............................................................................................44
67. Omico Mining & Industrial Corp. v. Judge Vallejos, 63 SCRA 285..........................................44
68. Cabreana v. Avelino, 107 SCRA 640.......................................................................................44
69. Balasabas v. Aquilizan, 106 SCRA 489....................................................................................44
70. Re: Complaint Against Justice Asuncion of the Court of Appeals, A.M. No. 06-6-8-CA, 518
SCRA 512 (Atty. Padilla v. Justice Asuncion, A.M. No. 06-44-CA-J)....................................................44
71. Macalintal v. The, 280 SCRA 623............................................................................................44
72. Boiser v. Aguirre Jr., 458 SCRA 430........................................................................................44
73. Cruz v. Huralde, 402 SCRA 65.................................................................................................44
74. Maquiran v. Grageda, 451 SCRA 15.......................................................................................44
75. Dadula v. GineteMina v. Mupas, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2067, June 18, 2008................................44
76. Briones v. Ante, Jr., 380 SCRA 409.........................................................................................44
77. Flora C. Mariano v. Atty. Anselmo Echavez A.C. No. 10373, May 31, 2016............................44
78. Dr. Basilio Malvar v. Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros, A.C. No. 11346, March 8, 2017...................44
79. Bar Matter No. 702, May 12, 1994.........................................................................................44
80. Marilu C. Turla v. Atty. Jose M. Caringal, A.C. No. 11641, March 12, 2019............................44
a. Lawyer’s Oath

1. Rufina Luy Lim v. Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza,

A.C. No. 10261, July 16,2019

FACTS

 This is a Complaint for Disbarment filed by Rufina Luy Lim (Rufina)

against Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza) for violation of Canon 1,
Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 8, Rule 8.01, Canon 10,
Rule 10.01, Canon 11, Rule 11. 03, and Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Section 20, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court.

 Rufina is the surviving spouse of Pastor Y. Lim (Pastor) who died on June 11,
1994. She claimed that during his lifetime, Pastor used conjugal funds to
organize several dummy corporations2 (Skyline International, Inc.
(Skyline), Nell Mart, Inc. (Nell Mart), etc.) using his mistresses and
employees as incorporators and/or stockholders, in order to defeat
her claims to said properties.

 On March 17, 1995, Rufina filed a Joint Petition before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for the settlement of Pastor's estate.
Miguel Lim (Miguel), brother of Pastor, on behalf of his mother Yao
Hiong, filed a Petition for Intervention dated August 17, 1995
categorically stating under oath that Skyline, etc., are dummy
corporations and that the persons whose names appear as
incorporators, stockholders and officers thereof were mere dummies.
The Petition also averred that the parcels of lands titled under the
names of the corporations were really owned by Pastor.

 The Petition for Intervention was executed before Atty. Mendoza, as

notary public.5 He also notarized the affidavits of Teresa T. Lim, Lani
G. Wenceslao, Susan Sarcia-Sabado and Miguel, who all admitted
under oath that: Pastor created dummy corporations; the purported
stockholders thereof did not pay a single centavo for shares under
their names; and, the affiants as directors, stockholders, or officers
did not have any actual participation in the operation of said
companies.

 Arguments:

o Complainant’s

 Atty. Mendoza, as counsel of Skyline, argued that Skyline

is the registered owner of several real properties and that
it has all the right to protect its interest against Rufina
despite his knowledge that Skyline is a dummy
corporation and it has been judicially declared as
conjugal property of Rufina and Pastor.
  Rufina also claimed that Atty. Mendoza, acting as Vice-
President of Nell Mart demanded from the tenants of lots
claimed to have been owned by the same to vacate the
property, even while knowing that Nell Mart is a dummy
corporation.

 Rufina finally averred that Atty. Mendoza used intemperate

language in his pleadings particularly when he said that
Rufina collected "BILLIONS OF PESOS" as rentals which were
"DISSIPATED ON HER GAMBLING VICES."

o Respondent’s

 Atty. Mendoza, in his Answer, countered that Rufina and

Pastor were separated for more than 26 years by the time
Pastor died. On May 11, 1972, the couple entered into an
Agreement where they already partitioned their conjugal
properties.

 As for the issue on dummy corporations, the RTC of Quezon

City, Branch 99 already held in Special Proceeding Case No. Q-
95-23334 that "the bank deposits in the names of [Nell Mart]
and Skunac Corporation x x x which were found to be properties
distinct from the estate, are x x x not properties of the estate of
xxx Pastor x x x and are, therefore, ordered excluded
therefrom x x x."

 Admitted to have filed the Petition for Intervention, he said that

it was "pre-arranged between Rufina Luy Lim and Miguel Y.
Lim." Unfortunately, Miguel and Yao Hiong died before they
could testify, hence the statements made in the Petition for
Intervention are mere hearsay.

 Atty. Mendoza further pointed out that this is the second

complaint filed by Rufina against him before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) involving the same issue of ownership of
the properties covered by TCT Nos. 236236 and 236237
registered in the name of Nell Mart. He claimed that Rufina
filed the disbarment complaints against him in retaliation
for her losses in other cases.

o IBP Report and Recommendation

 IBP Board of Governors passed approved the Commission's

report and recommendation of the suspension of Atty. Mendoza
from the practice of law for two years.

 The Commission's report:

 Although Atty. Mendoza admitted that the 1972

Agreement may be improper, he still argues that the
same is valid between the parties. Respondent's
insistence on the validity of the Agreement only betrays
 his ignorance of the law which contravenes Canons
112 and 513 of the CPR.

 Assuming that respondent drafted the Petition for

Intervention, since he signed the same, the presumption
is that the contents thereof are true and correct, as in
fact, his client attested to the truthfulness of the contents
thereof. To later assail the truthfulness of the Petition for
Intervention, alleging that it was a pre-arranged
agreement between his client and the complainant, shows
that respondent lied to the courts.

 Despite his knowledge about the irregularity in the

issuance of shares in Nell Mart, he still acquired shares of
stocks and even claimed to be a buyer in good faith.

 As a notary, he notarized affidavits which in effect

attested to repeated violations of the Corporation Code,
without any showing that he even attempted to caution
his clients of the illegality of their acts.

 Respondent also did not deny using offensive language in

his pleadings.

 Respondent's Position Paper lacked Professional Tax

Receipt Number, IBP Receipt or Lifetime Number, Roll of
Attorneys Number and his Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE), in clear violation of Bar Matter Nos.
1132 and 1922.

ISSUE: WON respondent violated Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

 YES. Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza is DISBARRED from the practice of law for

violation of Canons 1, 5, and 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and his name is ordered STRICKEN OFF the Roll of
Attorneys.

o The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that

they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it.

o Lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal

proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
They must perform a four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the
courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of
the legal profession as embodied in the CPR.

o The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer, not just to obey the laws of
the land, but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court
 or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity to the courts, as well as to his clients.

o All lawyers are servants of the law, and have to observe and maintain
the rule of law, as well as be exemplars worthy of emulation by others.
It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that the CPR emphatically
reiterates the core values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.

o Canon 10 of the CPR stresses that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and
good faith to the court.

o While Rule 10.01 states that — “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.”

 As properly observed by the IBP-CBD, respondent drafted and

signed the Petition for Intervention which avers in essence that
the subject corporations, Skyline, etc., were mere dummies
created by the late Pastor Lim. 18 He also notarized the affidavits
of Teresa Lim, Lani Wenceslao and Susan Sabado stating in
essence that they were dummies in the corporations of Pastor.

 The flip-flopping averments of respondent in his pleadings

betray a lack of forthrightness and transparency on his part. He
initially averred, through the Petition for Intervention and
supporting affidavits which he signed and notarized, that the
corporations were dummies of Pastor. He now claims, however,
that the statements in the Petition were mere hearsay and that
the shares of stocks he now owns in the corporations were
actually payments to him for his services and advances.

 With the incompatibility of the two positions, it is clear that

respondent has been less than truthful in at least one occasion.
This, we cannot countenance.

o As officers of the court, lawyers are expected to act with complete

candor. They may not resort to the use of deception, not just in some,
but in all their dealings. The CPR bars lawyers from committing or
consenting to any falsehood, or from misleading or allowing the court
to be misled by any artifice or guile in finding the truth. Needless to
say, complete and absolute honesty is expected of lawyers when they
appear and plead before the courts. Any act that obstructs or impedes
the administration of justice constitutes misconduct which merits
disciplinary action on lawyers.

o As a lawyer, respondent is expected to be a disciple of truth, having

sworn upon his admission to the Bar that he would do no falsehood
nor consent to the doing of any in court, and that he would conduct
himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients.

o Respondent should bear in mind that as an officer of the court, his

high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the
 facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at a correct
conclusion. Courts meanwhile are entitled to expect only complete
honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them.

 This respondent failed to do.

 Respondent also cannot feign ignorance as to the veracity of the

statements in the petition because he signed the same. “A
counsel's signature on a pleading is neither an empty formality
nor even a mere means for identification. It is a solemn
component of legal practice that through a counsel's signature,
a positive declaration is made. In certifying through his
signature that he has read the pleading, that there is ground to
support it, and that it is not interposed for delay, a lawyer
asserts his competence, credibility, and ethics.”

o Respondent also erred in asserting that while the May 11, 1972
Agreement between Rufina and Pastor was "improper for notarial act,"
it has "binding effect against third persons." The Agreement in essence
was a contract entered into by the parties, separating their present
and future properties, with Rufina waiving her support from Pastor and
both spouses waiving any future action between them, whether civil or
criminal.

 The sworn obligation of every lawyer to respect the law and the
legal processes is a continuing condition for retaining
membership in the profession.27 He is also expected to keep
abreast of legal developments.28 To claim that such agreement
is binding against third persons shows either respondent's
ignorance of the law or his wanton disregard for the laws of the
land. Either of which deserves disciplinary sanction.

o Respondent likewise failed to use temperate and respectful language in

his pleading against complainant. In his Comment in Special
Proceeding Case No. Q-95-23334 before RTC-QC Branch 77,
respondent averred that Rufina collected "BILLIONS OF PESOS" in rent
which were "DISSIPATED ON HER GAMBLING VICES."29

 The Code provides that a "lawyer shall not, in his professional

dealings, use language that is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper." Lawyers are instructed to be gracious and must use
such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to
another. Our language is rich with expressions that are
emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory,
illuminating but not offensive.30

 Here, respondent, in his eagerness to advance his client's cause,

imputed on Rufina derogatory traits that are damaging to her
reputation.

o Finally, respondent failed to indicate in his Position Paper material

information required by the rules. These are, the Professional Tax
Receipt Number, IBP Receipt or Lifetime Number, Roll of Attorneys
Number and his MCLE, in violation of Bar Matter Nos. 1132 and 1922.
  These requirements are not vain formalities or mere frivolities.
Rather, these requirements ensure that only those who have
satisfied the requisites for legal practice are able to engage in it.
To willfully disregard them is to willfully disregard mechanisms
put in place to facilitate integrity, competence and credibility in
legal practice.31

 In Sosa v. Atty.Mendoza,32 this Court found respondent guilty of

violating Rule 1.01 of the CPR, for his willful failure to pay a loan
in the amount of P500,000.00. The Court ordered his
suspension from the practice of law for one year with a stern
warning that a commission of the same or similar offense will
result in the imposition of a more severe penalty. In said case,
the Court declared that Atty. Mendoza's "failure to honor his just
debt constitutes dishonest and deceitful conduct x x x [which is]
compounded by Atty. Mendoza's act of interjecting flimsy
excuses that only strengthened the conclusion that he refused
to pay a valid and just debt."33

 The string of offenses committed by respondent betrays his propensity to

ignore, disrespect and make a mockery of the judicial institution he has
vowed to honor and protect. His violations, in not just one instance, show his
recalcitrant character, undeserving of the privilege to practice in the legal
profession.

 It cannot be stressed enough that membership in the Bar is a privilege laden

with conditions, granted only to those who possess the strict intellectual and
moral qualifications required of lawyers as instruments in the effective and
efficient administration of justice. As officers of the courts and keepers of the
public's faith, lawyers are burdened with the highest degree of social
responsibility. They are mandated to behave at all times in a manner that is
consistent with truth and honor and are expected to maintain not only legal
proficiency, but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair
dealing.

2. Verlita V. Mercullo and Raymond Vedan v. Atty. Marie Frances

E.Ramon, A.C. no. 11078, July 19, 2016

FACTS:

This case concerns the complaint for the disbarment of Atty. Marie
Frances E. Ramon for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath for deceiving the complainants in order to
obtain the substantial amount of P350,000.00 on the pretext of having the
foreclosed asset of the latter's mother redeemed. However, the respondent did
not submit her answer when required to do so. She also did not attend the
mandatory conference set by the IBP despite notice. Hence, the investigation
proceeded ex parte. Consequently, the IBP recommends for the suspension of
Atty. Ramon from the practice of law for two years and ordered to return the
amount of P350,000.00 to complainant.

ISSUE: WON the respondent violated the Code of Responsibility

RULING:
 The Court declares the respondent guilty of dishonesty and deceit. The
respondent certainly transgressed the Lawyer's Oath by receiving money from
the complainants after having made them believe that she could assist them in
ensuring the redemption in their mother's behalf. She was convincing about her
ability to work on the redemption because she had worked in the NHFMC. She
did not inform them soon enough, however, that she had meanwhile ceased to
be connected with the agency. It was her duty to have so informed them. She
further misled them about her ability to realize the redemption by falsely
informing them about having started the redemption process. She concealed
from them the real story that she had not even initiated the redemption
proceedings that she had assured them she would do. Everything she did was
dishonest and deceitful in order to have them part with the substantial sum of
P350,000.00. She took advantage of the complainants who had reposed their
full trust and confidence in her ability to perform the task by virtue of her being
a lawyer. Surely, the totality of her actuations inevitably eroded public trust in
the Legal Profession.

Wherefore, the Court finds and holds ATTY. MARIEFRANCES E. RAMON

guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and the Lawyer's Oath; SUSPENDS HER FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR A
PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS EFFECTIVE FROM NOTICE, with the STERN WARNING
that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely;
ORDERS her to return to the complainants the sum of P350,000.00 within 30
days from notice, plus legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality
of this decision until full payment; and DIRECTS her to promptly submit to this
Court written proof of her compliance within the same period of 30 days from
notice of this decision.

3. Petition For Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M.

Dacanay, Petitioner
B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007

FACTS:

In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to Canada to seek medical help. In

order for him to take advantage of Canada’s free medical aid program. He
became a Canadian citizen in 2004. In 2006 however, he re-acquired his
Philippine citizenship pursuant to Republic Act 9225 of the Citizenship Retention
and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. In the same year, he returned to the Philippines
and he now intends to resume his practice of law.

ISSUE: WON Benjamin Dacanay may still resume his practice of law

RULING:

Yes. As a rule, the practice of law and other professions in the Philippines
are reserved and limited only to Filipino citizens. Philippine citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar. So when Dacanay became a Canadian
citizen in 2004, he ceased to have the privilege to practice law in the Philippines.
However, under RA 9225, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another
country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires
his Filipino citizenship in accordance with RA 9225. Hence, when Dacanay
reacquires his Filipino citizenship in 2006, his membership to the Philippine bar
was deemed to have never been terminated. But does this also mean that he
can automatically resume his practice of law right after reacquisition? No.
Dacanay must still comply with several conditions before he can resume his
practice of law, to wit:(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual
membership dues in the IBP;(b) the payment of professional tax;(c) the
completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education;
this is especially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of
Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and(d) there taking of the
lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as
a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Compliance with these conditions
will restore his good standing as a member of the Philippine bar.

b. Introduction
a. Legal Ethics (Code of Professional Responsibility)
 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
(Promulgated June 21, 1988)
CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

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.

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.

CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN

EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE
INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.

Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the
cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.

Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case,
he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if
only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.

Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act

designed primarily to solicit legal business.

Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those
customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE

ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.

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.

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.

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.
 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.

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.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT

SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF 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.

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.

CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

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 attribute.

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.

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.

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.
 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.

Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for
legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:

(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or

associate that, upon the latter's death, money shall be paid over
a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified
in the agreement; or

(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal

business of a deceased lawyer; or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees
in a retirement plan even if the plan is based in whole or in part,
on a profit sharing agreement.

CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

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.

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent

the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing
counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law
a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
assert as a fact that which has not been proved.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

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 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.

Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.

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.

Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the

proper authorities only.
 CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS
DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.

Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has
adequately prepared himself on the law and the facts of his case, the
evidence he will adduce and the order of its proferrence. He should
also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the
copies.

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

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.

Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a
break or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under
examination.

Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to

misrepresent himself or to impersonate another.

Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness

nor needlessly inconvenience him.

Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client,

except:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or

custody of an instrument, and the like; or

(b) on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is

essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must, during
his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.

CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND
REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES
THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or
hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with
Judges.

Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against a party.

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.

CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.

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.

Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and
sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus
curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any
of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.

Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an

indigent client unless:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(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.

Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay
his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct
governing his relations with paying clients.

CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY

IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall

ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a
conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall
forthwith inform the prospective client.

Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege

communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective
client.

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.

Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned,
act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.

Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when advising his client, shall give a candid and
honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's case,
neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.

Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to

influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.

Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with
the laws and the principles of fairness.

Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or

occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his
client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
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.

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.

Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he

knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he
may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can
obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the
matter.

Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to

him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

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.

CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN

THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

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.
 Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has,
in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person
or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and
failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in
accordance with the Rules of Court.

Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure
in handling the case.

CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.

Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in

determining his fees:

(a) the time spent and the extent of the service rendered or
required;

(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

(c) The importance of the subject matter;

(d) The skill demanded;

(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of

acceptance of the proffered case;

(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule
of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs;

(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits

resulting to the client from the service;

(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;

(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or

established; and

(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.

Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with the consent of the
client, be entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the work
performed and responsibility assumed.

Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and
consent of the client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission,
interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or other compensation
whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone other
than the client.

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.

CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS

OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS
TERMINATED.
 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.

Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use
information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the
same to his own advantage or that of a third person, unless the client
with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.

Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his
client, give information from his files to an outside agency seeking
such information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting,
data processing, or any similar purpose.

Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to
partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.

Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required

to prevent those whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or
using confidences or secrets of the clients.

Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a

client's affairs even with members of his family.

Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted
about a particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest.

CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD

CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

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;

(b) When the client insists that 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.
 Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to
a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which
the client is entitled, and shall cooperative with his successor in the
orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for
the proper handling of the matter.

..Judicial Ethics (A.M. no. 03-05-01-SC, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary)
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary

Whereas Clauses

WHEREAS, at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace.
The Hague, on 25–26 November 2002, at which the Philippine Supreme Court was
represented by the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, the
Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the Judicial Group on
Strengthening Judicial Integrity was deliberated upon and approved after
incorporating therein several amendments;
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft, as amended, is intended to be the Universal
Declaration of Judicial Standards applicable in all judiciaries;
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft is founded upon a universal recognition that a
competent, independent and impartial judiciary is essential if the courts are to fulfill
their role in upholding constitutionalism and the rule of law; that public confidence
in the judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary is of
utmost importance in a modem democratic society; and, that it is essential that
judges, individually and collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a public
trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system;
WHEREAS, the adoption of the universal declaration of standards for ethical conduct
of judges embodied in the Bangalore Draft as revised at the Round Table
Conference of Chief Justices at The Hague is imperative not only to update and
correlate the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted for
the Philippines, but also to stress the Philippines' solidarity with the universal
clamor for a universal code of judicial ethics.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court hereby adopts this New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary.

Canon 1 – Independence
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental
guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial
independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.
 Section 1 Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the
basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious
understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement,
pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for
any reason.

Section 2 In performing judicial duties, Judges shall be independent from

judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to make
independently.

Section 3 Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome
of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative
agency.

Section 4 Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to

influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not
be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or
permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to
influence the judge.

Section 5 Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with,
and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but
must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.

Section 6 Judges shall be independent in relation to society in general and in

relation to the particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to
adjudicate.

Section 7 Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of
judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and
operational independence of the judiciary.

Section 8 Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial

conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary which is
fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.

Canon 2 – Integrity

Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also
to the personal demeanor of judges.

Section 1 Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach,
but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.

Section 2 The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's
faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice musty not merely be done but
must also be seen to be done.

Section 3 Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures

against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the
judge may have become aware.

Canon 3 – Impartiality

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not
only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision to made.
Section 1 Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or
prejudice.

Section 2 Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of
court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.

Section 3 Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to

minimize the occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be
disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.

Section 4 Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before, or could

come before, them make any comment that might reasonably be expected to
affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the
process. Nor shall judges make any comment in public or otherwise that
might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.

Section 5 Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any

proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in
which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide
the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to,
instances where

a. The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal

knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;

b. The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in

the matter in controversy;

c. The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest

in the outcome of the matter in controversy;

d. The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or

lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of
the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or
lawyer was a material witness therein;

e. The judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;

f. The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant

within the sixth civil degree or to counsel within the fourth civil
degree; or

g. The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial
interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the
subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any
other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of
the proceedings;

Section 6 A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of withdrawing

from the proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of disqualification. If,
based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers independently of the
judge's participation, all agree in writing that the reason for the inhibition is
immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge may then participate in the
proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be
incorporated in the record of the proceedings.
Canon 4 – Propriety

Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all
the activities of a judge.
Section 1 Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
in all of their activities.

Section 2 As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept

personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary
citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges conduct
themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

Section 3 Judges shall, in their personal relations with individual members of

the legal profession who practice regularly in their court, avoid situations
which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favoritism
or partiality.

Section 4 Judges shall not participate in the determination of a case in which

any member of their family represents a litigant or is associated in any
manner with the case.

Section 5 Judges shall not allow the use of their residence by a member of
the legal profession to receive clients of the latter or of other members of the
legal profession.

Section 6 Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of

expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights,
they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the
dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the
judiciary.

Section 7 Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary

financial interests and shall make reasonable efforts to be informed about the
financial interests of members of their family.

Section 8 Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to
advance their private interests, or those of a member of their family or of
anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the impression
that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence them in the
performance of judicial duties.

Section 9 as last updated by OCA Cir. 103-06 (2006) Confidential

information acquired by judges in their judicial capacity shall not be used or
disclosed for any other purpose NOT related to their judicial duties.

Section 10 Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, judges

may:

a. Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities concerning the law,

the legal system, the administration of justice or related matters;

b. Appear at a public hearing before an official body concerned with

matters relating to the law, the legal system, the administration of
justice or related matters;

c. Engage in other activities if such activities do not detract from the

dignity of the judicial office or otherwise interfere with the
performance of judicial duties.

Section 11 Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial office.
 Section 12 Judges may form or join associations of judges or participate in
other organizations representing the interests of judges.

Section 13 Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor
accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be
done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance
of judicial duties.

Section 14 Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to
their influence, direction or authority, to ask for, or accept, any gift, bequest,
loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done
in connection with their duties or functions.

Section 15 Subject to law and to any legal requirements of public disclosure,

judges may receive a token gift, award or benefit as appropriate to the
occasion on which it is made provided that such gift, award or benefit might
not reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the
performance of judicial duties or otherwise give rise to an appearance of
partiality.

Canon 5 – Equality
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due
performance of the judicial office.

Section 1 Judges shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society and
differences arising from various sources, including but not limited to race,
color, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status,
sexual orientation, social and economic status and other like causes.

Section 2 Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or

conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.

Section 3 Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate

consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court
staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground,
immaterial to the proper performance of such duties.

Section 4 Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to
his or her influence, direction or control to differentiate between persons
concerned, in a matter before the judge on any irrelevant ground.

Section 5 Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to

refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on
irrelevant grounds, except such as are legally relevant to an issue in
proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate advocacy.

Canon 6 – Competence and Diligence

Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial

office.
 Section 1 The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other
activities.

Section 2 Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties,

which include not only the performance of judicial functions and
responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks
relevant to the judicial office or the court's operations.

Section 3 Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their
knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper
performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the
training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial
control, to judges.

Section 4 Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant

developments of international law, including international conventions and
other instruments establishing human rights norms.

Section 5 Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

Section 6 Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before
the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants,
witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official
capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal representatives, court
staff and others subject to their influence, direction or control.

Section 7 Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent
discharge of judicial duties.

Definitions
In this Code, unless the context otherwise permits or requires, the following
meanings shall be attributed to the words used:
"Court staff" includes the personal staff of the judge including law clerks.
"Judge" means any person exercising judicial power, however designated.
"Judge's family" includes a judge's spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law,
daughter-in-law, and any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the sixth civil degree, or person who is a companion or employee of the
judge and who lives in the judge's household.
This Code, which shall hereafter be referred to as the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics
and the Code of Judicial Conduct heretofore applied in the Philippines to the
extent that the provisions or concepts therein are embodied in this Code:
Provided, however, that in case of deficiency or absence of specific
provisions in this New Code, the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of
Judicial Conduct shall be applicable in a suppletory character.
This New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary shall take
effect on the first day of June 2004, following its publication not later than
15 May 2004 in two newspapers of large circulation in the Philippines to
ensure its widest publicity.
Promulgated this 27 day of April 2004.
 c. Definition of Terms
i. Bar and Bench
a. Bar

Bar is a collective term for the attorneys who are licensed to practice
in the Courts, or a particular court, of any state.

The term ‘Bar' was originated in England with the partition of Bar fixed
for dividing the court hall into two parts for the purpose of separating
lawyers and officers of the court from suitors and other general public.
Black's Law dictionary defines 'Bar' as the railing that separates the
front area where the judge, court personnel, lawyers and witness
conduct court business, from the back area which provides seats for
observers. The same dictionary has also defined the ‘Bar’ as the whole
body of lawyers qualified to practice in a given court or jurisdiction;
the legal profession or an organized sub-set of it.

 “Encyclopedia of American explains that the term ‘Bar’ as a court

room applied to the area impliedly reserved for the principals of the
court. i.e. the judge, the attorneys, the court officer and members of
the jury.
 
At present Bar means a particular part of court room where lawyers
sit.          

b. Bench
Bench means all the judges taken together as distinguished from the
‘Bar’ the name for all the members of the legal profession- bench is
that part of the court considered in its official capacity, while the
judges are sitting. The earlier meaning of Bar contained the part of
Bench also at the present term ‘Bar’ is applied for the attorneys part of
the court and the term is used for the judicial officers part of the
Court.     

ii. Lawyer and Trial lawyer

a. Lawyer
a person who practices or studies law; an attorney or a counselor.

b. Trial lawyer
represent clients in both civil and criminal cases. Their primary job is
to argue the facts of a case before a judge or jury on their client's
behalf. In court, trial lawyers may argue motions, meet with judges, or
select jurors.

iii. Attorney-at-Law and Attorney-in-fact

An attorney-in-fact need not be a lawyer. And another term for “lawyer” is
“attorney-at-law.” If you have passed a state bar exam and are thus legally
qualified in that state to prosecute and defend actions in a court on behalf of
a client who has retained you, then you are an attorney-at-law.

Their functions are also different. An attorney-in-fact must make decisions

for their principal, while an attorney-at-law makes no decisions for their
client. Instead, they offer advice to their client and can represent them in
the courtroom.
a. Attorney-at-Law
An attorney at law is permitted to represent another individual in the
practice of law but is not allowed to make decisions on their behalf.
This includes any decision-making, such as whether or not to settle.
This term originated in England, where lawyers who were authorized to
practice in the common law courts were referred to as attorneys at
law.
In the British legal system, different terminology was used based on
the type of law that was practiced. For example, the term "private
attorney" was used for the one hired for business or legal affairs,
whereas an attorney at law, or public attorney, was the qualified legal
agent in the Common Law courts. At the turn of the 19th century, the
distinction was eventually abolished when lawyers became known
as solicitors. However, in the U.S., the term was adopted to refer to
any law practitioner.
b. Attorney-in-fact

The attorney-in-fact is not required to be an actual lawyer, but they

must act in the best interests of the principal and follow any
instructions or guidelines set forth in the power of attorney. The
attorney-in-fact is also required to keep the principal's affairs
confidential and to keep records of all actions taken on behalf of the
principal.
It's important to note that an attorney-in-fact is not the same as a
lawyer or an attorney. A lawyer is a professional who is licensed to
practice law, while an attorney-in-fact is simply a person who has been
given the authority to act on behalf of another person.

If designated as a general power of attorney, an attorney in fact can

conduct any spending or investment actions that the principal would
normally make. Therefore, the duties of an attorney in fact may
include:

 Withdrawing funds
 Opening and closing bank accounts
 Trading stocks
 Paying bills
 Cashing checks

For example, a parent may designate a child a general power of

attorney. By granting their child this title, the parent may receive help
with bills and financial matters that may have become too difficult for
them to handle. This usually occurs when the parent has become
bedridden, immobile, or can't travel to take care of financial matters.
If a principal is not comfortable giving that much power to someone
else, rather than designate a general power of attorney, they can
decide to appoint an attorney in fact as a special power of attorney.
For example, if a parent is generally healthy but undergoes surgery,
they may grant their child special power of attorney until they recover
or decide to revoke it.
It is important to note that all attorneys in fact have a fiduciary duty.
The responsibilities of a fiduciary include:

 Keeping the best interest of the principal in mind

 Making financial decisions using the highest standards of good
faith
  Keeping a principal's wishes and goals in mind at all times
 Being fair and loyal in all decision-making

An attorney in fact's power is limited in two important ways:

 Once a person passes away, an attorney in fact loses all power.

An attorney in fact is only allowed to act while the principal is
still alive.
 An attorney in fact only has control over assets that are not held
in a trust. Rather, trust assets are always governed by a
trustee.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

An attorney-in-fact is someone who is designated to act on behalf of

another person, whether in business, financial, or personal matters.

An attorney-in-fact is designated through the granting of power of

attorney, usually by the person who will be represented.

An attorney-in-fact need not be an attorney-at-law, which is another

name for “lawyer.” The former makes decisions for a principal, while
the latter advises and represents a client but is not involved in
decision-making.

The person appointing the attorney-in-fact is called the "principal,"

and the attorney-in-fact is sometimes referred to as the "agent."

Sometimes the courts can assign an individual power of attorney for

another person if they have become incapacitated.

1) Attorney-in-Fact and Power of Attorney

An attorney-in-fact is a person who has been legally appointed to act on
behalf of another person in a legal or business matter. The person
appointing the attorney-in-fact is called the "principal," and the attorney-in-
fact is sometimes referred to as the "agent."

An attorney-in-fact is usually appointed through a legal document called a

power of attorney (POA). This document gives the attorney-in-fact the
authority to make decisions and take actions on behalf of the principal in a
variety of legal and financial matters. For example, an attorney-in-fact might
be given the power to sign documents, manage a bank account, or sell
property on behalf of the principal.

The attorney-in-fact is not required to be an actual lawyer, but they must

act in the best interests of the principal and follow any instructions or
guidelines set forth in the power of attorney. The attorney-in-fact is also
required to keep the principal's affairs confidential and to keep records of all
actions taken on behalf of the principal.

It's important to note that an attorney-in-fact is not the same as a lawyer or

an attorney. A lawyer is a professional who is licensed to practice law, while
an attorney-in-fact is simply a person who has been given the authority to
act on behalf of another person.

 
IMPORTANT: Attorneys are trained in the legal system and are responsible
for representing clients in legal matters, such as in court or in negotiations
with other parties. Attorneys are also responsible for giving legal advice and
guidance to their clients.
 An attorney-in-fact, on the other hand, is any person who has been
appointed to act on behalf of another person in a legal or business matter.

2) Types of Power of Attorney

There are two basic types of power of attorney (POA) granted to attorneys-
in-fact.

 General – General power of attorney grants the attorney-in-fact not

only the right to conduct any business and sign any documents on
behalf of the principal, but to make decisions, including financial
decisions, on their behalf.
 Limited – Under a limited power of attorney assignment, also
sometimes known as “special power of attorney ,” the attorney-in-fact
can be authorized to conduct certain transactions and make some
decisions but not others. They are limited to the topics specified in the
assigning document.

WARNING: Anyone assigning power of attorney should take care to

choose someone they trust.

3) The Powers and Duties of an Attorney-in-Fact

If the attorney-in-fact is designated as a general power of attorney, they are
allowed to conduct any actions that the principal would reasonably take. This
means an attorney-in-fact would be able to open and close bank accounts,
withdraw funds, trade stocks, pay bills, and cash checks—all on behalf of the
principal.

With a limited power of attorney, the attorney-in-fact is granted broad

powers in one or more areas but not others. For example, the attorney-in-
fact could be authorized to carry out transactions at the direction of the
principal but not to make business or financial decisions. It could also be
narrower, such as only granting the right to sign documents related to the
pending sale of a specific piece of property.

4) Durable Power of Attorney

IMPORTANT: When a power of attorney is deemed “durable,” it continues
even after the principal becomes incapacitated, an event that would
normally terminate it.

A power of attorney generally terminates when a person dies, becomes

incapacitated, or consciously chooses to revoke it via a notice filed in court.
It can also end if it has a set date or its purpose has been accomplished.
However, if it has been designated as a “durable” power of attorney, the
attorney-in-fact retains the power of attorney should a principal become
incapacitated. In such a situation the attorney-in-fact can continue to make
decisions for the principal, including in matters of finance and healthcare .

Durable power of attorney can be granted ahead of time on condition that it

only takes effect due to a triggering event, such as when the principal
becomes incapacitated. This is also called a “springing” power of attorney. In
this case it is a good idea to name one or more successors, as the original
designee may be unavailable or, due to changed circumstances, be unwilling
to assume the responsibility of becoming an attorney-in-fact.
5) Why Do You Need an Attorney-in-Fact?
There can be a variety of reasons to designate an attorney-in-fact. It can
simply be for convenience, if, for example, you are buying or selling an asset
and it is a burden for you to appear in person to close the deal. It can also
be for cases in which you cannot act for yourself, whether due to physical or
mental incapacity or something less serious, such as travel, illness, or
accident.

6) Does an Attorney-in-Fact Need to Be a Lawyer?

No. An attorney-in-fact can be anyone you wish to designate as such. Often
they are a family member or close friend. That said, there is nothing to
prevent you from choosing a lawyer, also known as an “attorney-at-law,” as
your attorney-in-fact.

7) Are Power of Attorney and Attorney-in-Fact the Same Thing?

Absolutely not. An attorney-in-fact is someone to whom you consent to give
your power of attorney. When making decisions on your behalf, the
attorney-in-fact is usually required to show the written document providing
power of attorney as proof of their authority.

8) What Are the Liabilities of Being an Attorney-in-Fact?

As an attorney-in-fact, you are legally responsible for carrying out the duties
and responsibilities assigned to you by the principal. This means that you
have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of the principal and to
follow the instructions and guidelines set forth in the power of attorney. If
you fail to fulfill your duties as an attorney-in-fact, you may be held liable
for any damages or losses that result from your actions or inactions. For
example, if you make a financial decision on behalf of the principal that
results in a loss of money, you may be held financially responsible for that
loss.

Additionally, you may be held liable for any actions you take on behalf of the
principal that are outside the scope of the power of attorney. For example, if
the power of attorney specifically states that you are not authorized to sell
the principal's property, but you go ahead and sell it anyway, you could be
held liable for any losses that the principal incurs as a result of the sale. To
avoid potential liability, it's important to carefully review the power of
attorney and make sure you fully understand your responsibilities as an
attorney-in-fact. You should also seek legal guidance if you have any
questions or concerns about your duties as an attorney-in-fact.

9) The Bottom Line

An attorney-in-fact is someone who is granted authority to make decisions
on behalf of another person, known as the “principal.” Such authority is
granted via a written document providing power of attorney to the attorney-
in-fact. Power of attorney can be either general or limited to certain
specified transactions and topics. Typically, it only lapses if the principal
dies, becomes incapacitated, or consciously revokes it through a notice filed
in court. However, if it is a durable power of attorney, the attorney-in-fact
will continue to serve if the principal becomes incapacitated.

Making a decision to appoint an attorney-in-fact should not be done lightly ,

and the person so designated should be a person or persons (you can
appoint more than one) whom you trust. Family members and close friends
are popular choices. If you appoint more than one, be sure to specify if
decisions can be made by majority vote or must be unanimous.
iv. Counsel de officio and Attorney of record
a. Counsel de officio
A counsel de officio is the counsel appointed by the court to represent and
defend the accused in case he cannot afford to employ one himself.

b. Attorney of record
The attorney of record is the lawyer who appears in court or receives
pleadings and other formal documents on a party's behalf.

v. Lead counsel and Collaborating counsel

a. Lead counsel
the lawyer who controls and manages a case when there is more than
one lawyer assigned to a case.
b. Collaborating counsel

With the consent of the client, a collaborating counsel may participate

in an ongoing case

vi. Amicus Curiae and Expert witness

a. Amicus Curiae
Literary means a “Friend of the Court” and an experienced and impartial
attorney invited by the court to appear and help in the disposition of the
issues submitted to it.

b. Expert witness
a person who is permitted to testify at a trial because of special knowledge
or proficiency in a particular field that is relevant to the case.

vii. Practice of Law

“Monsod, [2] the Court held that "practice of law" means any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To
engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the
legal profession.”
c. Practice of Law (Rule 138, Rules of Court)
RULE 138

Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. — Every applicant for
admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years
of age, of good moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the
Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him,
involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

Section 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United States of America. —
Citizens of the United States of America who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed members
of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in the courts of the Philippines and in good and regular
standing as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts before the Supreme Court, be
allowed to continue such practice after taking the following oath of office:

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in

the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor
give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct
myself as a lawyer according to the best of may knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

Section 4. Requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions. — Applicants for admission
who, being Filipino citizens, are enrolled attorneys in good standing in the Supreme Court of the
United States or in any circuit court of appeals or district court therein, or in the highest court of
any State or Territory of the United States, and who can show by satisfactory certificates that
they have practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that such practice began before July
4, 1946, and that they have never been suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the
Court, be admitted without examination.

Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. — All applicants for admission other
than those referred to in the two preceding section shall, before being admitted to the
examination, satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied law for four years, and
successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially approved
and recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a
certificate from the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and
further evidence may be required by the court.

No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed
the following courses in a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law,
commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law,
labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.

Section 6. Pre-Law. — No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted
unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he
began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and
recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year
high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or
sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science,
logic, english, spanish, history and economics.

Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. — All applicants for admission shall file with the
clerk of the Supreme Court the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15)
days before the beginning of the examination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of this rule
they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and certificate required by section 5, and if
embraced within sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a license evidencing the fact of their
admission to practice, satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked, and certificates
as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at the same time their own affidavits
as to their age, residence, and citizenship.

Section 8. Notice of Applications. — Notice of applications for admission shall be published by

the clerk of the Supreme Court in newspapers published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at
least ten (10) days before the beginning of the examination.

Section 9. Examination; subjects. — Applicants, not otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4
of this rule, shall be subjected to examinations in the following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and
Social Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public
Corporations, and Public Officers); International Law (Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial
Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises
(in Pleadings and Conveyancing).

Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing. — Persons taking the
examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms. The questions
shall be the same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to
each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions personally without help from anyone.

Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will
be difficult to read his answers without much loss of time., the Supreme Court may allow such
examinee to use a typewriter in answering the questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall be
allowed to be used.

The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are necessary to prevent the
substitution of papers or commission of other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on
the examination papers. No oral examination shall be given.

Section 11. Annual examination. — Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines
shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be disignated by
the chairman of the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as follows:
First day: Political and International Law (morning) and Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon);
Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third day: Mercantile Law (morning)
and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises (afternoon).

Section 12. Committee of examiners. — Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of bar

examiners to be appointed by the Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a
Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be designated by the
court to serve for one year, and eight members of the bar of the Philippines, who shall hold office
for a period of one year. The names of the members of this committee shall be published in each
volume of the official reports.

Section 13. Disciplinary measures. — No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of

the committee, and during examination the candidates shall not communicate with each other
nor shall they give or receive any assistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or any
other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the examination, and the same to count as a
failure against him, and further disciplinary action, including permanent disqualification, may be
taken in the discretion of the court.

Section 14. Passing average. — In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his
examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all
subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in any subjects. In determining the average, the
subjects in the examination shall be given the following relative weights: Civil Law, 15 per cent;
Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law; 10 per
cent: Political and International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per
cent; Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent.

Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers. — Not later than February
15th after the examination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file
its report on the result of such examination. The examination papers and notes of the committee
shall be filed with the clerk and may there be examined by the parties in interest, after the court
has approved the report.

Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. — Candidates who have failed the bar
examinations for three times shall be disqualified from taking another examination unless they
show the satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth year
review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law school.

The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the candidates under this rule shall
certify under oath that the candidates have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects
under the same conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by them in the
particular subject.

Section 17. Admission and oath of successful applicants. — An applicant who has passed the
required examination, or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall
take and subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office.

Section 18. Certificate. — The supreme Court shall thereupon admit the applicant as a member
of the bar for all the courts of the Philippines, and shall direct an order to be entered to that effect
upon its records, and that a certificate of such record be given to him by the clerk of court, which
certificate shall be his authority to practice.

Section 19. Attorney's roll. — The clerk of the Supreme Court shall kept a roll of all attorneys
admitted to practice, which roll shall be signed by the person admitted when he receives his
certificate.

Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and
obey the laws of the Philippines.

(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.

Section 21. Authority of attorney to appear. — an attorney is presumed to be properly

authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is
required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion
of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who
assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears,
and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed him,
and may thereupon make such order as justice requires. An attorneys wilfully appear in court for
a person without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as
an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official transactions.

Section 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed to represent client on appeal. — An
attorney who appears de parte in a case before a lower court shall be presumed to continue
representing his client on appeal, unless he files a formal petition withdrawing his appearance in
the appellate court.

Section 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.

Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees. — An attorney shall be entitled to

have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, with
a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the services
rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by the opinion
of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may disregard such
testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A written contract for
services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the court to be
unconscionable or unreasonable.

Section 25. Unlawful retention of client's funds; contempt. — When an attorney unjustly retains
in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded, he may be punished for contempt
as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under
this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.

Section 26. Change of attorneys. — An attorney may retire at any time from any action or
special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court. He may also retire at any
time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the court, on
notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire.
In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket
of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the
advance party.

A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the contract
between client and attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal of the attorney was
without justifiable cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation
stipulated in the contract. However, the attorney may, in the discretion of the court, intervene in
the case to protect his rights. For the payment of his compensation the attorney shall have a lien
upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such
judgment, rendered in the case wherein his services had been retained by the client.

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 wilfull 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.
Section 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance . — The
Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance may suspend an attorney from practice for any of
the causes named in the last preceding section, and after such suspension such attorney shall
not practice his profession until further action of the Supreme Court in the premises.

Section 29. Upon suspension by the Court of Appeals or Court of First Instance, further
proceedings in Supreme Court. — Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or the Court of
First Instance shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of
suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same was based. Upon the receipt
of such certified copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the
facts involved and make such order revoking or extending the suspension, or removing the
attorney from his office as such, as the facts warrant.

Section 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. — No attorney shall be

removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had full opportunity upon
reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf,
and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and
answer the accusation, the court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte.

Section 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants. — A court may assign an attorney to render
professional aid free of charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it appears that the
party is destitute and unable to employ an attorney, and that the services of counsel are
necessary to secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty
of the attorney so assigned to render the required service, unless he is excused therefrom by the
court for sufficient cause shown.

Section 32. Compensation for attorneys de oficio. — Subject to availability of funds as may be

provided by the law the court may, in its discretion, order an attorney employed as counsel de
oficio to be compensates in such sum as the court may fix in accordance with section 24 of this
rule. Whenever such compensation is allowed, it shall be not less than thirty pesos (P30) in any
case, nor more than the following amounts: (1) Fifty pesos (P50) in light felonies; (2) One
hundred pesos (P100) in less grave felonies; (3) Two hundred pesos (P200) in grave felonies
other than capital offenses; (4) Five Hundred pesos (P500) in capital offenses.

Section 33. Standing in court of person authorized to appear for Government. — Any official or
other person appointed or designated in accordance with law to appear for the Government of
the Philippines shall have all the rights of a duly authorized member of the bar to appear in any
case in which said government has an interest direct or indirect.

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

Section 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. — No judge or other official or employee of the
superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a
member of the bar or give professional advice to clients.

Section 36. Amicus Curiae. — Experienced and impartial attorneys may be invited by the Court
to appear as amici curiae to help in the disposition of issues submitted to it.

Section 37. Attorneys' liens. — An attorney shall have a lien upon the funds, documents and
papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until
his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction
thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of
money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a
litigation of his client, from and after the time when he shall have the caused a statement of his
claim of such lien to be entered upon the records of the court rendering such judgment, or
issuing such execution, and shall have the caused written notice thereof to be delivered to his
client and to the adverse paty; and he shall have the same right and power over such judgments
and executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and secure the payment of his just
fees and disbursements.
4. Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane v. Judge Medel Belen,
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119
5. Eduardo B. Manalang v. Atty. Cristina Benosa Buendia,
A.C. No.12079, November 10, 2020
 6. Cayetano v Monsod
201 SCRA 210

FACTS:

On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the

nomination of Christian Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18,
1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office as
Chairman of the COMELEC. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments of Monsod’s nomination, petitioner as a
citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as
Chairman of the Commission on Election s be declared null and void.

Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having

passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a
dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its
inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees as
lawyer for more than ten years.

After graduating from College of Law and having hurdled the bar, Atty.
Monsod worked in the law office of his father. During his stint in the World
Bank Group (1963-1970), Monsod worked as an operations officer for about
two years in Costa Rica and Panama, which involved getting acquainted with
the laws of member-countries, negotiating loans and cording legal, economic,
and project work of the Bank. Upon returning to the Philippines in 1970, he
worked with the Meralco Group, served as chief executive officer of an
investment bank and subsequently of a business conglomerate, and since
1986, has rendered services to various companies as a legal and economic
consultant or chief executive officer. As former Secretary-General and
National Chairman of NAMFREL, Monsod’s work involved being
knowledgeable in election law. He appeared for NAMFREL in its accreditation
hearings before the Comelec. In the field of advocacy, Monsod, in his
personal capacity and as former Co-Chairman of the Bishops Businessmen’s
Conference for Human Development, has worked with the under privileged
sectors, such as the farmer and urban poor groups, in initiating, lobbying for
and engaging in affirmative action for the agrarian reform law and lately the
urban land reform bill. Monsod also used his legal knowledge as a member of
the Davide Commission, a quasi-judicial body, which conducted numerous
hearings and as a member of the Constitutional Commission, and Chairman
of its Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, for which he was cited
by the President of the Commission, Justice Cecila Munoz-Palma for
“innumerable amendments to reconcile government functions with individual
freedoms and public accountability and the party-list system for the House of
Representative.”

ISSUE: WON Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten (10)years prior to his appointment as COMELEC Chairman.

RULING:

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires

the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
“To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or
 render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any
degree of legal knowledge or skill.”

x x x Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term

“practice of law,” particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking
into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the
Constitution, Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a
lawyer manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor – verily more
than satisfy the constitutional requirement – that he has beenengaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.

a. Power of the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law (par. 5,

Sec. 5, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)

Par. 5, Sec. 5, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution x x x. (5) The Council shall have the principal
function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and
duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

7. In re: Cunanan
94 Phil. 534

Facts:

Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known as the “Bar
Flunkers’ Act of 1953.” In accordance with the said law, the Supreme Court then
passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who hadobtained an average
of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent. After its approval, many of the
unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking
itsprovisions, while other motions for the revision of their examination papers
were still pending also invoked theaforesaid law as an additional ground for
admission. There are also others who have sought simply thereconsideration of
their grades without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid injustice to
individualpetitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration,
irrespective of whether or not they had invokedRepublic Act No. 972.

ISSUE: Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid.

RULING:

RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the
Bar, those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and
inadequate preparation. In the judicial system from which ours has been
evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys
at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been
indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We have said that in the
judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission, suspension,
disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession
is concededly judicial. On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction
between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the
government. It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for
the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by
Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities may
say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license. Republic Act Number
972 is held to be unconstitutional.

Summarizing, we are of the opinion and hereby declare that Republic Act No. 972 is unconstitutional
and therefore, void, and without any force nor effect for the following reasons, to wit:
1. Because its declared purpose is to admit 810 candidates who failed in the bar examinations of
1946-1952, and who, it admits, are certainly inadequately prepared to practice law, as was exactly
found by this Court in the aforesaid years. It decrees the admission to the Bar of these candidates,
depriving this Tribunal of the opportunity to determine if they are at present already prepared to
become members of the Bar. It obliges the Tribunal to perform something contrary to reason and in
an arbitrary manner. This is a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the
Supreme Court.

2. Because it is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of this Court on the petitions of these
810 candidates, without having examined their respective examination papers, and although it is
admitted that this Tribunal may reconsider said resolution at any time for justifiable reasons, only this
Court and no other may revise and alter them. In attempting to do it directly Republic Act No. 972
violated the Constitution.

3. By the disputed law, Congress has exceeded its legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement
the rules on admission to the Bar. Such additional or amendatory rules are, as they ought to be,
intended to regulate acts subsequent to its promulgation and should tend to improve and elevate the
practice of law, and this Tribunal shall consider these rules as minimum norms towards that end in
the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers to the Bar, inasmuch as a good
bar assists immensely in the daily performance of judicial functions and is essential to a worthy
administration of justice. It is therefore the primary and inherent prerogative of the Supreme Court to
render the ultimate decision on who may be admitted and may continue in the practice of law
according to existing rules.

4. The reason advanced for the pretended classification of candidates, which the law makes, is
contrary to facts which are of general knowledge and does not justify the admission to the Bar of law
students inadequately prepared. The pretended classification is arbitrary. It is undoubtedly a class
legislation.

5. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the
Constitution enjoins, and being inseparable from the provisions of article 1, the entire law is void.

6. Lacking in eight votes to declare the nullity of that part of article 1 referring to the examinations of
1953 to 1955, said part of article 1, insofar as it concerns the examinations in those years, shall
continue in force.

8. In re: Lanuevo
66 SCRA 245

FACTS:

Administratve proceedings against Victorio D. Lanuevo — for disbarment;

Ramon E. Galang,alias Roman E. Galang — for disbarment;

Hon. Bernardo Pardo, Hon. Ramon Pamatian, Atty.Manuel C. Tomacruz; Atty.

Manuel G. Montecillo, Atty. Fidel Manalo and Attyy. Guillermo Pablo,Jr. — for
disciplinary action — for their acts and omissions during the 1971 Bar
Examinations.

Victorio Lanuevo, Bar Confidant of the 1971 Bar Examinations, Admitted having
brought the five examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back to the respective
examiners for re-evaluation or re-checking. The five examiners admitted having re-
evaluated or re-checked the notebook delivered by the Bar Confidant, stating that
he has the authority to do the same and that the examinee concerned failed only in
his particular subject and was on the borderline of passing. Ramon galang was able
to pass the 1971 bar exam because of Lanuevo’s move but the exam results bears
that he failed in 5 subjects namely in Political Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law,
Criminal Law & Remedial Law).

ISSUES:
1. WON Victorio Lanuevo should be disbarred.
2. WON Ramon Galang should be disbarred.
3. WON the examiners be given disciplinary action.

Ruling:

1. Yes. Lanuevo systematically and cleverly initiated and prepared the stage
leading to the re-evaluation and/or recorrection of the answers of respondent
Galang by deceiving separately and individually the respondents-examiners
to make the desired revision without prior authority from the Supreme Court
after the corrected notebooks had been submitted to the Court through the
respondent Bar Confidant, who is simply the custodian thereof for and in
behalf of the Court.

The Office of the Bar Confdant, it must be stressed, has absolutely nothing to
do in the re-evaluation or reconsideration of the grades of examinees who
fail to make the passing mark before or after their notebooks are submitted
to it by the Examiners. After the corrected notebooks are submitted to him
by the Examiners, his only function is to tally the individual grades of every
examinee in all subjects taken and thereafter compute the general average.
In trying to do justice to Galang, as claimed by respondent Lanuevo, grave
injustice was inflicted on the other examinees of the 1971 Bar examinations,
especially that more than ninety candidates who were more deserving of
reconsideration. Furthermore, the unexplained failure of respondent Lanuevo
to apprise the Court or the Committee or even the Bar Chairman of the fact
of re-evaluation before or after the said re-evaluation and increase of grades,
precludes, as the same is inconsistent with, any pretension of good faith.
Thus, he shall be disbarred.

2. Yes. The name of respondent Ramon E. Galang, alias Roman E. Galang,

should likewise be stricken of the Roll of Attorneys. This is a necessary
consequence of the un-authorized re-evaluation of his answers in five (5)
major subjects — Civil Law, Political and International Law, Criminal Law,
Remedial Law, and Mercantile Law.

Furthermore, respondent Galang continued to intentionally withhold or

conceal from the Court his pending criminal case of slight physical injuries;
such is a violation of the rule that every applicant is duty bound to lay before
the Court all his involvement in any criminal case, pending or otherwise
terminated, to enable the Court to fully ascertain or determine applicant's
moral character.

3. No. All respondents Bar examiners candidly admitted having made the re-
evaluation and/or re-correction of the papers in question upon the
misrepresentation of respondent Bar Confidant Lanuevo. All, however,
professed good faith; and that they re-evaluated or increased the grades of
the notebooks without knowing the identity of the examinee who owned the
said notebooks; and that they did the same without any consideration or
expectation of any. These the records clearly demonstrate that indeed the
respondents-examiners made the re-evaluation or re-correction in good faith
and without any consideration whatsoever. Considering however the vital
public interest involved in the matter of admission of members to the Bar,
the respondents bar examiners, under the circumstances, should have
 exercised greater care and caution and should have been more inquisitive
before acceding to the request of respondent Bar Confidant Lanuevo.

9. Oscar B. Pimentel, et.al. v. Legal Education Board as representedby

its Chairperson, Hon. Emerson B. Aquende, and LEB member Hon.
Zenaida N. Elepaño,
G.R. No. 230642, September 10, 2019

FACTS:
The Congress, on December 23, 1993, passed into law R.A. No. 7662 (AN ACT
PROVIDING FOR REFORMS IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION, CREATING FOR THE
PURPOSE, A LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES). It created the
LEB, an executive agency which was made separate from the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports (DECS).

Court's Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM), through its
Chairperson, Justice Jose C. Vitug, noted several objectionable provisions of R.A. No. 7662
namely Section 2, Section 3, Section 7 (e) and (h) which allegedly violates Article VIII of
the Constitution. CLEBM suggested amendments but RA 7662 remained unaltered.

Despite the passage of the enabling law in 1993, the LEB became fully operational
only in June 2010. Since then, the LEB had issued several orders, circulars, resolutions, and
other issuances which are made available through their website.

Among them is the PhiLSAT, which is essentially an aptitude test measuring the
examinee's communications and language proficiency, critical thinking, verbal and
quantitative reasoning. It was designed to measure the academic potential of the examinee
to pursue the study of law.

Petitioners pray that R.A. No. 7662 be declared unconstitutional and that the creation
of the LEB be invalidated together with all its issuances, most especially the PhiLSAT, for
encroaching upon the rule-making power of the Court concerning admissions to the
practice of law, violates academic freedom and the right to education.

They also argue that the Congress cannot create an administrative office that
exercises the Court's power over the practice of law and it gives the JBC additional functions
to vet nominees for the LEB in violation of Section 8(5), Article VIII of the Constitution.

Likewise, petitioner questions LEB’s powers to prescribe qualifications and

compensation of faculty members and its power to adopt a system of continuing legal
education.

ISSUES:
Whether RA 7662 is unconstitutional;

Whether LEB has jurisdiction over the supervision and regulation of legal education;

Whether PhiLSAT violates academic freedom and right to education.

RULING
In general, R.A. No. 7662, as a law meant to uplift the quality of legal education,
does not encroach upon the Court's jurisdiction to promulgate rules under Section 5(5),
Article VIII of the Constitution. It is well-within the jurisdiction of the State, as an exercise of
its inherent police power, to lay down laws relative to legal education, the same being
imbued with public interest. However, certain provisions and clauses of R.A. No. 7662 which,
by its plain language and meaning, go beyond legal education and intrude upon the Court's
exclusive jurisdiction suffer from patent unconstitutionality and should therefore be struck
down.
 Moreover, the exercise of the power to supervise and regulate legal education is
circumscribed by the normative contents of the Constitution itself, that is, it must be
reasonably exercised.

Accordingly, the Court recognizes the power of the LEB under its charter to prescribe
minimum standards for law admission. The PhiLSAT, when administered as an aptitude test
to guide law schools in measuring the applicants' aptness for legal education along with such
other admissions policy that the law school may consider, is such minimum standard. But, if
it is used to exclude, qualify, and restrict admissions to law schools, as its present
design mandates, the PhiLSAT goes beyond mere supervision and regulation,
violates institutional academic freedom, becomes unreasonable and therefore,
unconstitutional.
 b. Revised Law Student Practice Rule (A.M. 19-03-24-SC), (Rule 138-
A)
A.M. 19-03-24-SC
LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
Rule 138-A

SECTION 1. Conditions for Student Practice. - A law student who has

successfully completed 3rd year of the regular four-year
prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law
school's clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme
Court, may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or
administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or
officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal
clinic of the law school. chan robles virtual law library

SEC. 2. Appearance. -  The appearance of the law student authorized

by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision and control
of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly
accredited by the law school.  Any and all pleadings, motions,
briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed by
the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal
clinic. chan robles virtual law library

SEC. 3.  Privileged communications. - The Rules safeguarding

privileged communications between attorney and client shall apply
to similar communications made to or received by the law student,
acting for the legal clinic.

SEC. 4.  Standards of conduct and supervision. - The law student

shall comply with the standards of professional conduct governing
members of the Bar.  Failure of an attorney to provide adequate
supervision of student practice may be a ground for disciplinary
action.   (SC Circular No. 19, prom. Dec. 19, 1986).

c. Qualifications for Admission to the Bar (Bar Matter No. 1153)

10. Mercuria D. So v. Ma. Lucille P. Lee, B.M. No. 3288, April

10,2019

FACTS:

 Petitions to Retake the Lawyer's Oath and to Sign the Roll of

Attorneys of Ma. Lucille P. Lee (Lee), one of the successful examinees of the 2016
Bar Examinations.

Factual Antecedents

On May 19, 2017, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter  from 3

Mercuria D. So (So) alleging that Lee is a defendant in Civil Case No. 740 and is not fit for
admission to the Bar considering her irresponsible attitude towards her monetary obligations.
Attached in the said letter was a copy of the Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money  So 4

had filed against Lee.

In her Comment,  Lee claimed that she was unaware of the pendency of Civil Case No. 740
5

as she learned of it only when she registered for the oath taking. She admitted that she
obtained a ₱200,000.00 loan from So but had already paid a total of ₱140,000.00 for 10
months. Lee explained that due to the losses her business suffered, she failed to pay the
subsequent monthly payments. She pointed out that she did not intend to evade her
obligation to So, but had asked the latter to give her ample time to settle it.

In its July 11, 2017 Report,  the OBC noted that Lee was an applicant of the 2016
6

Bar Examinations and in her application, she declared that a civil case was filed against her
on January 29, 2014 docketed as Civil Case No. 1436 titled "Nonoy Bolos v. Ma Lucille Lee
Jao" for collection of sum of money. It highlighted that Civil Case No. 1436 pertained to the
several loans Lee had incurred with Joseph "Nonoy" Bolos (Bolos) in the aggregate amount
of ₱1,450,000.00."

In its August 1, 2017 Resolution,  the Court held in abeyance Lee's request to be allowed to
7

sign the Roll of Attorneys in view of the pendency of Civil Case Nos. 740 and 1436, and
required her to manifest the status of the aforementioned cases.

In her October 2017 petition, Lee manifested that Civil Case No. 740 had been dismissed in
view of the Compromise Agreement she had entered into with So. She manifested that she
already paid So in accordance with the terms and conditions of the approved Compromise
Agreement. 8

In her March 2019 petition, Lee reiterated the dismissal of Civil Case No. 740 and the
satisfaction of her obligation in accordance with the Compromise Agreement with So. In
addition, she noted that a Judgment by Compromise had been issued dismissing Civil Case
No. 1436 in view of the Compromise Agreement she had executed with Bolos. It was agreed
upon that Lee would pay Bolos at least ₱15,000.00 a month starting one month after she
signs the Roll of Attorneys.
9

In its March 28, 2019 Report,  the OBC recommended that Lee be allowed to retake the
10

Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to the condition that she inform the
Court within one month from the time she has made her first payment of ₱15,000.00 to Bolos
and to inform the Court upon full payment of the debt in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the compromise.

The Issue

WHETHER LEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RETAKE THE

LAWYER'S OATH AND SIGN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.

The Court's Ruling

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege.  It is extended only to the few who possess the high standards
11

of intellectual and moral qualifications and the Court is duty-bound to prevent the entry of
undeserving aspirants, as well as to exclude those who have been admitted but have
become a disgrace to the profession.  Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides for
12

the minimum requirements applicants for the admission to the Bar must possess, to wit:

SEC. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. - Every applicant for
admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one
years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines, and must produce
before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no
charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in
the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)

Moral turpitude has been defined as an act of baselessness, vileness, or the depravity of
private and social duties that man owes to his fellow man or society in general, contrary to
the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. 13

Jurisprudence had deemed the following acts as crimes involving moral turpitude: abduction
with consent, bigamy, concubinage, smuggling, rape, attempted bribery, profiteering,
robbery, murder, estafa, theft, illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, issuance of
bouncing checks, intriguing against honor, violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, perjury, forgery, direct bribery, frustrated homicide, adultery, arson,
evasion of income tax, barratry, blackmail, bribery, duelling, embezzlement, extortion,
forgery, libel, making fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract, mutilation of public
records, fabrication of evidence, offenses against pension laws, perjury, seduction under the
promise of marriage, falsification of public document, and estafa through falsification of
public document. 14

Nevertheless, not every criminal act involves moral turpitude.  The determination whether
15

there is moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all the
circumstances.  In turn, it is for the Court to ultimately resolve whether an act constitutes
16

moral turpitude.  In the same vein, not all civil cases pertain to acts involving moral turpitude.
17

As defined, acts tainted with moral turpitude are of such gravity that manifests an individual's
depravity or lack of moral fiber.

As such, the pendency of a civil case alone should not be a deterrent for successful Bar
examinees to take their Lawyer's Oath and to sign the Roll of Attorneys especially since not
all charges or cases involve acts evincing moral turpitude. The facts and circumstances of
each case should be taken into account to establish that the applicant's actions tarnished his
or her moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. If it were otherwise, one's entitlement to be a
member of the legal profession would be seriously jeopardized by the expedient filing of civil
cases, which do not necessarily reflect one's moral character.

Thus, the pendency of Civil Case Nos. 740 and 1436 against Lee is not enough reason to
prevent her from taking her Lawyer's Oath and signing in the Roll of Attorneys. The
existence of these civil cases alone does not establish that she committed acts tainted with
moral turpitude.

It is equally important to note that all civil cases filed against Lee had been dismissed on
account of the compromise she entered into with her creditors. Thus, there is no longer any
obstacle which may hinder her in officially becoming a member of the Bar by taking her oath
and signing in the Roll of Attorneys.

Nevertheless, Lee must still satisfactorily exhibit that she would not renege on her monetary
obligations to Bolos. As above-mentioned, Civil Case No. 1436 was dismissed after Lee had
agreed to enter into a compromise with Bolos and set the terms and conditions for her to
settle her monetary obligation. There is no question that Lee owes Bolos a sum of money.

It must be remembered that the deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross
misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one year suspension from the
practice of law.  After taking her Lawyer's Oath and signing in the Roll of Attorneys, Lee
18

would be a full-fledged member of the legal profession and subject to the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Court. This is true even if there would be no complainants, as the Court
may motu proprio initiate disciplinary proceedings.  Concomitantly, she is bound to act in a
19

manner consistent with the high standards imposed on lawyers — otherwise, she could be
subjected to administrative sanctions. The requirement of good moral character is not only a
condition precedent to admission to the practice of law, but a continuing requirement for
membership in the legal profession. 20

In sum, the pendency of civil cases alone should not prevent successful Bar examinees to
take their Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys, unless the same involves acts or
omissions which had been previously determined by the Court to be tainted with moral
turpitude. This is of course without prejudice to the filing of any administrative action against
would-be lawyers who fail to continue to possess the required moral fitness of members of
the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, the Court adopts the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant
to ALLOW Ma. Lucille P. Lee to retake the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys
subject to the condition that she: (a) notify the Court within one (1) month from making her
first monthly payment to Joseph Bolos; and (b) inform the Court upon full satisfaction of her
monetary obligation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the January 29, 2019
Judgment by Compromise.
 11. Diao v. Martinez, 7 SCRA 475

FACTS:

After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao (Diao) was
admitted to the Bar.

About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application
for such Bar examination for lacking of the required pre-legal education prescribed by the Department
of Private Education, as a requisite for taking the bar examination. The matter was investigated by the
Solicitor General and found out that Diao did not complete his high school training and never attended
Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom.

ISSUE: Whether or not Diao should be admitted to the practice of law profession

RULING:

Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but due to his false representations, he was
allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such admission having been
obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked. The fact that he hurdled the Bar
examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an
attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.

The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. And
the latter is required to return his lawyer’s diploma within thirty days.

d. Who may Practice Law

12. In Re: Petition to Sign on the Roll of Attorneys, Michael A.

Medado, Petitioner B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013

FACTS:

Statement of Facts: Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his law degree in the year
1979, took and passed the same year’s bar examinations and took the Attorney’s Oath, failed to sign
the Attorney’s Roll. After more than 30 years of practicing the profession of law, he filed the instant
Petition on February 2012, praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado said
that he was not able to sign the Roll of Attorneys because he misplaced the notice given to him and
he believed that since he had already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys is not
urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) after
conducting clarificatory conference on the matter recommended to the Supreme Court that the
instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit.

ISSUE: WON the petitioner be allowed to sign in the roll of attorneys?

RULING:

Yes, the Court allowed the petitioner to sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to the payment of
a fine and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.

The Court cannot forbid the petitioner from signing the Roll of Attorneys because such
action constitutes disbarment. Such penalty is reserved to the most serious ethical transgressions of
members of the Bar.

The Court cited three main points which demonstrate Medado’s worth to become a full-
fledged member of the Philippine Bar. First, Medado demonstrated good faith and good moral
character when he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. It was Medado
himself who admitted his own error and not any third person. Second, petitioner has not been
subject to any action for disqualification from the practice of law. He strove to adhere to the strict
requirements of the ethics of the profession and that he has prima facie shown that he possesses
the character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar. Third, Medado appears to have been a
competent and able legal practitioner, having held various positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron,
Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy Development
Corporation.

However, the Court cannot fully free Medado from all liability for his years of inaction. His
justification of his action, that it was “neither willful nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief
and an honest error of judgment” was opposed by the Court.

“A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed

to know the law and its consequences.” Although an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse
a person from the legal consequences of his acts he could no longer claim it as a valid justification by
the moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an attendance record. His action of
continuing the practice of law in spite of his knowledge of the need to take the necessary steps to
complete all requirements for the admission to the bar constitutes unauthorized practice of law.
Such action transgresses Canon 9 of 'the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:

CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of
law.

With respect to the penalty, previous violations of Canon 9 have warranted the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law. However, in the instant case the Court could not warrant the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law to Medado because he is not yet a full-fledged
lawyer. Instead, the Court see it fit to impose upon him a penalty similar to suspension by allowing
him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one ( 1) year after receipt of the Resolution and to fine him in the
amount of P32,000.

The instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is Affirmed. Petitioner Michael A.
Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of the Resolution.
Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE of P32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law. During
the one year period, petitioner is NOT ALLOWED to practice law, and is STERNLY WARNED that
doing any act that constitutes practice of law before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be
dealt with severely by the Court.

13. Aguirre v. Rana B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003, 451 SCRA 428

FACTS:

Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.
Respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001
elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers of Mandaon, Masbate and filed
with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the
Canvassing of Votes in some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent
represented himself as "counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan,"
and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan. Furthermore, respondent also signed as
counsel for Emily Estipona-Hao on 19 May 2001 in the petition filed before the MBEC praying for
the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate. On
21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees as
members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre filed against respondent a
Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. On 22 May 2001, respondent was allowed to take
the lawyer’s oath but was disallowed from signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the
charges against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent shall be denied Admission to the Bar.

 RULING:

Respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings
before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly supports
the charge of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent called himself "counsel" knowing fully
well that he was not a member of the Bar. Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he
had no authority to practice law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the
Philippine Bar.

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is
limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and
certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge,
educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar
candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The
practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar
examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license. True,
respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is
the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that
respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only
qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential
requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be
administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.

e. Duties of an Attorney (Sec. 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court)

Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and
obey the laws of the Philippines.

(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.
 f. Judicial and Bar Council (Section 8 & 9, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)

Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the
Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of
Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of
the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a
representative of the private sector.

(2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of
four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first
appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the
professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative
of the private sector for one year.

(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary  ex officio of the Council and
shall keep a record of its proceedings.

(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be
determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget
the appropriations for the Council.

(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the
Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may
assign to it.

Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall be
appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the
Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.

14. Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General

Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno G. R. No. 237428, May11,
2018

FACTS:
The Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, filed a Petition for
the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to declare void Respondent Sereno’s
appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (SC) and to oust and altogether exclude her
therefrom on the ground that she is ineligible for the position for lack of proven integrity, as
required by the Constitution, manifested by her non-compliance in the submission of SALN.

When the position for Chief Justice was declared vacant in 2012, the JBC announced the opening for
applications and nominations, requiring applicants from the government to submit all previous
SALNs up to 31 December 2011 (instead of the usual last two years of public service) and stating
that, “applicants with incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements will not be interviewed
or considered for nomination.”

Ironically, Sereno who was then an Associate Justice, was not able to comply with the submission of
the required number of SALNs for those applicants coming from the government, but was included
in the shortlisting of qualified applicants and eventually victoriously appointed as the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court.
Come August 30, 2017, or five years after respondent's appointment as Chief Justice, an
impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Larry Gadon (Atty. Gadon) against respondent with the
Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives (House Committee on Justice) for culpable
violation of the Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust. The complaint
also alleged that respondent failed to make truthful declarations in her SALNs.

Upon several hearings facts revealed that Sereno failed to comply the exacting requirements to be
appointed as Chief Justice as set by the Judicial and Bar Council, which was the submission of all
previous SALN. Instead, she just submitted only 3 SALNs from 2009-2011. In her justification, she
emphasized that considering her government records in the academe are more than 15 year old, it
is reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve all those files. She also pointed out that the JBC, in
including her in the shortlist of nominees was a clear manifestation that she meets the required
qualifications and documentary requirements for the position. Thus arising to two relevant
incidents:

(1) the proposal of the House Committee for this Court to investigate on the proceedings of the JBC
relative to the nomination of respondent as Chief Justice which is now presently docketed as A.M.
No. 17-11-12 and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC; and the reason for this petition which is

(2) the Letter dated February 21, 2018 of Atty. Eligio Mallari to the OSG requesting that the latter, in
representation of the Republic, initiate a quo warranto proceeding against respondent.

The Republic contends that respondent's failure to submit her SALN s as required by the JBC
disqualifies her, at the outset, from being a candidate for the position of Chief Justice. Lacking her
SALNs, respondent has not proven her integrity which is a requirement under the Constitution. The
Republic thus concludes that since respondent is ineligible for the position of Chief Justice for lack of
proven integrity, she has no right to hold office and may therefore be ousted via quo warranto.

In her defense, SERENO argues that the Chief Justice may only be ousted from office by
impeachment on the basis of the Constitution and a long line of jurisprudence. Alternatively, she
argues that the present petition is timebarred, as it should have been filed within one year from the
cause of ouster, and not from the discovery of the disqualification.

Respondent also stresses that the failure to file SALNs or to submit the same to the JBC has no
bearing on one's integrity. The submission of SALNs was simply among the additional documents
which the JBC had required of the applicants for the position of Chief Justice. It is respondent's
position that the non-filing of SALN is not a ground for disqualification unless the same was already
the subject of a pending criminal or administrative case or if the applicant had already been finally
convicted for a criminal offense involving said failure to file SALNs. In this case, respondent points
out that the JBC was made aware as early as July 20, 2012 that respondent had not submitted to the
JBC her SALNs as a U.P. professor and yet none of them invoked Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 or the
"integrity rule."

In refuting respondent's arguments, the Republic justifies its resort to the unconventional method
of quo warranto. It reiterates its argument that it seeks respondent's ouster, not on account of
commission of impeachable offenses, but because of her ineligibility to assume the position of Chief
Justice.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant petition for quo
warranto against respondent who is an impeachable officer and against whom an impeachment
complaint has already been filed with the House of Representatives;

2. Whether the petition is outrightly dismissible on the ground of prescription;

3. Whether respondent is eligible for the position of Chief Justice:

 RULINGS:

1. YES (a.) Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution states that the SC has original jurisdiction over
petitions for quo warranto. This jurisdiction is concurrent with the Court of Appeals (CA) and the
Regional Trial Court (RTC). Section 7, Rule 66 of Rules of Court provides that the venue for an action
for quo warranto is in the RTC of Manila, CA, or SC when commenced by the Solicitor General. While
the hierarchy of courts serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for
the extraordinary writs, a direct invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction in this case is justified
considering that the qualification of a Member of the Court is in question, and the issue is of public
concern. The petition for quo warranto is of transcendental importance. The instant petition is one
of first impression and of paramount importance to the public in the sense that the qualification,
eligibility and appointment of an incumbent Chief Justice, the highest official of the Judiciary, are
being scrutinized through an action for quo warranto.

(b.) On the argument that Respondent is an impeachable officer such that a quo warranto petition
cannot prosper, the Court held that the origin, nature and purpose of impeachment and quo
warranto are materially different. While both impeachment and quo warranto may result in the
ouster of the public official, the two proceedings materially differ. At its most basic, impeachment
proceedings are political in nature; while an action for quo warranto is judicial or a proceeding
traditionally lodged in the courts. Furthermore, there is no forum-shopping, as alleged by the
Respondent, because quo warranto and impeachment can proceed independently and
simultaneously, as they differ as to (1) jurisdiction (2) grounds, (3) applicable rules pertaining to
initiation, filing and dismissal, and (4) limitations. The causes of action in the two proceedings are
unequivocally different. In quo warranto, the cause of action lies on the usurping, intruding, or
unlawfully holding or exercising of a public office, while in impeachment, it is the commission of an
impeachable offense. Likewise, the reliefs sought in the two proceedings are different. Respondent
in a quo warranto proceeding shall be ordered to cease holding a public office, which he/she is
ineligible to hold. On the other hand, in impeachment, a conviction shall result in the removal of the
Respondent from the public office that he/she is legally holding. Furthermore, the impeachment
case is yet to be initiated by the filing of the Articles of Impeachment before the Senate. Thus, at the
moment, there is no pending impeachment case against the Respondent. The proceedings in the
House are merely in the nature of a preliminary investigation whereby probable cause is sought to
be determined.

(c.) Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly elected
impeachable official may be removed from office. Even the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET)
Rules expressly provide for the remedy of either an election protest or a petition for quo warranto
to question the eligibility of the President and the Vice-President, both of whom are impeachable
officers. In fact, this would not be the first time the Court shall take cognizance of a quo warranto
petition against an impeachable officer (see cases of Estrada v. Desierto, et al. and Estrada v.
MacapagalArroyo where SC took cognizance of a quo warranto petition against former President
MacapagalArroyo considering whether former President Estrada’s act of resignation ended his
official status as President). Furthermore, the language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution
does not foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachable officers: “[T]he Members of the
Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be
removed from office ...” The provision uses the permissive term “may” which, in statutory
construction, denotes discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect. An option
to remove by impeachment admits of an alternative mode of effecting the removal. That the
enumeration of “impeachable offenses” is made absolute such that only those enumerated offenses
are treated as grounds for impeachment does not mean that it is to be taken as a complete
statement of the causes of removal from office. The word “may” cannot also be understood to
qualify only the imposable penalties because it would lead to the conclusion that other lesser
penalties may be imposed — a situation not contemplated in the language of the Constitutional
provision. The courts should be able to inquire into the validity of appointments even of
impeachable officers. To hold otherwise is to allow an absurd situation where the appointment of an
impeachable officer cannot be questioned, on the basis of citizenship or membership in the Bar, for
example. Unless such an officer commits any of the grounds for impeachment and is actually
impeached, he can continue discharging the functions of his office even when he is clearly
disqualified from holding it. Such would result in permitting unqualified and ineligible public officials
to continue occupying key positions, exercising sensitive sovereign functions until they are
successfully removed from office through impeachment.

(d.) The Supreme Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over a quo warranto petition is not violative of
the doctrine of separation of powers. At the outset, an action for quo warranto does not try a
person’s culpability of an impeachment offense, neither does a writ of quo warranto conclusively
pronounce such culpability. The Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over quo warranto proceedings
does not preclude the House of Representatives from enforcing its own prerogative of determining
probable cause for impeachment, to craft and transmit the Articles of Impeachment, nor will it
preclude the Senate from exercising its constitutionally committed power of impeachment. In this
case, it is incidental that the non-filing of SALNs also formed part of the allegations in the Articles of
Impeachment, which in itself is a Constitutional requirement, the violation of which constitutes
culpable violation of the Constitution. But unlike other impeachable officers, Respondent’s position
also demands compliance with the qualifications of having to be a person of proven competence,
integrity, probity, and independence — and the failure to submit SALNs goes into the very
qualification of integrity. For the guidance of the bench and the bar, and to obviate confusion in the
future as to when quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible public official may be availed of,
and in keeping with the Court’s function of harmonizing the laws and the rules with the
Constitution, the Court herein demarcates that an act or omission committed prior to or at the time
of appointment or election relating to an official’s qualifications to hold office as to render such
appointment or election invalid is properly the subject of a quo warranto petition, provided that the
requisites for the commencement thereof are present. On the contrary, acts or omissions, even if it
relates to the qualification of integrity, being a continuing requirement but nonetheless committed
during the incumbency of a validly appointed and/or validly elected official, cannot be the subject of
a quo warranto proceeding, but of something else, which may either be impeachment if the public
official concerned is impeachable and the act or omission constitutes an impeachable offense, or
disciplinary, administrative or criminal action, if otherwise.

(e.) The exercise of judicial restraint on the ground that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court,
has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment, is thus misplaced. An outright
dismissal of the petition based on speculation that Respondent will eventually be tried on
impeachment is a clear abdication of the Court’s duty to settle an actual controversy squarely
presented before it. There is also no possibility of a constitutional crisis upon which an abdication of
such duty is to be premised because, as discussed, it is within the Court’s judicial power to settle
justiciable issues or actual controversies involving rights, which are legally demandable and
enforceable. It is not arrogating upon itself the power to impeach, which is a political exercise.

(f.) Seeking affirmative relief from the Court is tantamount to voluntary appearance. Respondent
cannot now be heard to deny the Court’s jurisdiction over her person even as she claims to be an
impeachable official because Respondent in fact invoked and sought affirmative relief from the
Court by praying for the inhibition of several Members of this Court and by moving that the case be
heard on Oral Arguments, albeit ad cautelam.

2. NO (a.) Prescription does not lie against the State. The one-year limitation is not applicable when
the Petitioner is not a mere private individual pursuing a private interest, but the government itself
seeking relief for a public wrong and suing for public interest. Indubitably, the basic principle that
“prescription does not lie against the State” which finds textual basis under Article 1108 (4) of the
Civil Code, applies in this case. (b.) Respondent cleverly hid the fact of non-filing by stating that she
should not be required to submit the said documents as she was considered to be coming from
private practice; that it was not feasible to retrieve most of her records in the academe considering
that the same are more than fifteen years old; and that U.P. already cleared her of “all
academic/administrative responsibilities, money and property accountabilities and from
administrative charges”. She has never been clear on whether she had filed the required SALNs or
not. Given the foregoing, there can be no acquiescence or inaction, in this case, on the part of the
Republic as would amount to an abandonment of its right to seek redress against a public wrong and
vindicate public interest. (c.) Lastly, the Court finds it more important to rule on the merits of the
 novel issues imbued with public interest presented before Us than to dismiss the case outright
merely on technicality.

3. In this case, it was found that respondent is ineligible to hold the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court position for lack of integrity on account of her failure to file a substantial number of SALNs and
also, her failure to submit the required SALNs to the JBC during her application for the position.
Again, one of the Constitutional duties of a public officer is to submit a declaration under oath of his
or her assets, liabilities, and net worth upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be
required by law. 335 When the Constitution and the law exact obedience, public officers must
comply and not offer excuses. When a public officer is unable or unwilling to comply, he or she must
not assume office in the first place, or if already holding one, he or she must vacate that public office
because it is the correct and honorable thing to do. A public officer who ignores, trivializes or
disrespects Constitutional and legal provisions, as well as the canons of ethical standards, forfeits his
or her right to hold and continue in that office. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo Warranto is
GRANTED. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby
adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
Accordingly, Respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED therefrom. The
position of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is declared vacant and the Judicial and Bar Council
is directed to commence the application and nomination process

d. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Rule 139-A), (P.D. 181)

THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

BY-LAWS

ARTICLE I.

[Sections 1 to 17]

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. Name. - The national organization of lawyers created on January 6 , 1973 under Rule of Court
139-A (hereinafter designated as the Integration Rule) and constituted on May 4, 1973 into a body
corporate by Presidential Decree No. 181 shall be known as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Sec. 2. Objectives and purposes. - The following are the general objectives of the Integrated
bar:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

to elevate the standards of the legal profession,

to improve the administration of justice; and

to enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibilities more effectively.

The purposes of the Integrated Bar include, without being limited to, those specified in the per curiam
Resolution of the Supreme Court dated January 9, 1973 ordaining the integration of the Philippine Bar,
to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

[1] Assist in the administration of justice;

[2] Foster and maintain, on the part of its members, high ideals of integrity, learning, professional
competence, public service and conduct;

[3] Safeguard the professional interests of its members;

[4] Cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;

[5] Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice and
procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and publish information relating
thereto;

[6] Encourage and foster legal education; and

[7] Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective law, and make reports
and recommendations thereon.

Sec. 3. Powers, prerogatives, functions, duties and responsibilities. - The powers, prerogatives, functions,
duties and responsibilities of the Integrated Bar, its Chapters and other agencies, its officers and
committees, national and local, its commisions, and its members, are as provided by law, the Integration
Rule, Presidential Decree No. 181, these By-Laws and pertinent rules and regulations.

Inter alia, The Integrated Bar shall have perpetual sucession and shall have all legal powers appertaining
to a juridical person, particularly the power to sue and be sued; to contract and to be contracted with;
to hold real and personal property as may be necessary for corporate purposes, to mortgage, lease, sell,
transfer, convey and otherwise dispose of the same; to solicit and receive public and private donations
and contributions; to accept and receive real and personal property by gift, devise or bequest; to levy
and collect membership dues and special assessments from its members; to adopt a seal and to alter the
same at pleasure; to have offices and conduct its affairs in the Greater Manila Area and elsewhere; to
make and adopt by-laws, rules and regulations not inconsistent with the laws of the Philippines or the
Rules of Court particulary the Integrated Rule; and generally to do all such acts and things as may be
necessary or proper to carry into effect and promote the objectives and purposes for which it was
organized.

All donations or contributions which may be made by private entities or persons to the Integrated Bar
shall be exempt from income and gift taxes, and the same shall further be deductible in full and shall not
be included for purposes of computing the maximum amount deductible under Section 30, paragraph
(h) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

All taxes, charges and fees that may be paid by the Integrated Bar or any of its Chapters to the
Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be refundable annually to the
former for the period extending up to December 31, 1978.

Sec. 4. Non-political bar. - The Intergrated Bar is strictly non-political, and every activity tending to
impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an
elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or
instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election or appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar
or any Chapter thereof. A Delegate, Governor, officer or employee of the Integrated Bar, or an officer or
employee of any Chapter therof shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the
moment he files his certificate of candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment to any
judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or
instrumentality thereof.
Sec. 5. Positions honorary. - Except as may be specifically authorized or allowed by the Supreme Court,
no national or local officer, or committee or commisision member shall receive any compensation,
allowance or emolument from the funds of the Integrated Bar for any service rendered therein, or be
entitled to reimbursement for any expense incurred in the discharge of his functions.

Sec. 6. National office. - The national office of the Integrated Bar shall be in the Greater Manila Area.

Sec. 7. Seal and emblem. - The seal and emblem of the Integrated Bar, as adopted by the Board of
Governors, shall be kept in its national office.

Sec. 8. Notices and processes. - Services of all notices and processes intended for the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines shall be made upon its Secretary or any other authorized representative at its national
office.

Except as otherwise provided in these By-Laws, any notice to be served upon a member of the
Integrated Bar shall be deemed given when deposited in the mail, postage fully prepaid, and addressed
to such member at his last known office or residence address appearing in the records or membership
roll of the national office or of the Chapter concerned.

Notice to the general membership may be given by mail, by publication in the Journal of the Integrated
Bar, or as otherwise directed by the Board of Governors

Sec. 9. Officer defined. - The term "officer" as used in these By-Laws shall include, but not necessarily be
limited to the following: President, Executive Vice President, Governors, Secretary, Treasurer and other
national officers of the Integrated Bar, officers and members of the House of Delegates, Chapter officers
and directors, commisioners, and members of all national and local committees.

Only members in good standing may become officers and, unless otherwise provided in these By-Laws,
no person who is not a member of the Integrated Bar may become an officer.

Sec. 10. Term of office. - The term of office of all elective officers, national and local, shall be two years.
In no case may any member be elected to the same office for two consecutive terms.

Sec. 11. Vacancies. - Except as otherwise provided in these By-Laws, whenever the term of office or
position, whether elective or appointive, is for a fixed period, the person chosen to fill a vacancy therein
shall serve only for the unexpired position of the term.

Sec. 12. Non-answerability of the Integrated Bar. - In the absence of a showing of malice, fraud, bad
faith, or negligence, the Integrated Bar, its national officers and Governors, the officers and members of
the House of Delegates, all the Chapters and the offices thereof, commisioners, and all committees,
national and local, and the members thereof, shall not be answerable for any damage, incident to any
complaint, charge, investigation, prosecution, proceeding, trial, decision, resolution, recommendation,
or action had, made, done or taken under the authority of these By-Laws.
Sec. 13. Malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance. - Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding
section, the Board of Governors may motu proprio or upon the petition of any person, inquire into any
malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance committed by any member of the Integrated Bar or of any of
its Chapters, and, after due hearing, take whatever action it may deem warranted. Such action may
include his suspension or removal from any office in the Integrated Bar or of its Chapters held by such
erring member, as well as recommendation to the Supreme Court for his suspension from the practice
of law or disbarment.

Sec. 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections. - The following acts and practices relative to
elections are prohibited, whether committed by a candidate for any elective office in the Integrated Bar
or by any other member, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner, by himself or through another
person.

(1) Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign materials;

(2) Distribution, on election day, of election campaign materials other than a statement of the biodata
of the candidate on not more than one page of a legal size sheet of paper; or causing the distribution of
such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at the
elections;

(3) Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial or
prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof;

(4) Formation of tickets, single slates , or combinations of candidates as well s the advertising thereof;

(5) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withold his vote, or to vote for or against a
candidate, (1) payment of the dues or other indebtedness of any member; (2) giving of food, drink,
entertainment, transportation or any article of value, or any similar consideration to any person; or (3)
making a promise or causing an expenditure to be made, offered or promise to any person.

Sec. 15. Supreme Court observer. - The Supreme Court may designate an official observer at any election
of the Integrated Bar, whether national or local.

Sec. 16. Voluntary Bar Associations. - All voluntary Bar associations now existing or which may hereafter
be formed may co-exist with the Integrated Bar but shall not operate at cross-purposes therewith nor
against any policy, act, resolution or decision thereof.

Sec. 17. Rules of Court suppletory. - Whenever applicable, the Rules of Court shall be suppletory to
these By-Laws.

ARTICLE II.

[Sections 18 to 22]

MEMBERSHIP
Sec. 18. Membership. - The following persons are, automatically and without exception members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) A1l lawyers whose names were in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court as of January 16, 1973;
and

(b) All lawyers whose names were included or are entered therein after the said date.

Sec. 19. Registration. - Unless he has already previously registered, every member heretofore admitted
to the practice of law shall, not later than December 31, 1974, register in the Integrated Bar as
hereunder required, at the national office or at the office of his Chapter.

Every person admitted to the practice of law after these by-laws become effective shall register in like
manner not later than sixty days after such admission.

Registration shall be accomplished by signing and filing in duplicate the prescribed registration form
containing such information as may be required by the Board of Governors, including the
following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) Full name, sex and civil status;

(b) Month, date, year and place of birth;

(c) Office address(es);

(d) Residence address(es);

(e) Occupation(s) or employment;

(f) Name of law school and year of graduation;

(g) Year of admission to the Bar; and

(h) Field(s) of specialization in law, if any.

It shall be the duty of the Secretary of every Chapter to promptly forward a copy of each accomplished
registration form to the national office.

Every change after registration in respect to any of the matters above specified shall be reported within
sixty days to the Chapter Secretary who shall in turn promptly report the change to the national office.
Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular Chapter, a lawyer shall be considered a
member of the Chapter of the province, city, political subdivision or area where his office or, in the
absence thereof, his residence is located. In no case shall any lawyer be a member of more than one
Chapter.

Sec. 20. Members in good standing. - Every member who has paid all membership dues and all
authorized special assessments, plus surcharges owing thereon, and who is not under suspension from
the practice of law or from membership privileges, is a member in good standing.

Sec. 21. Voluntary termination of membership; reinstatement. - A member may terminate his
membership by filing a verified notice to that effect with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar, who shall
immediately bring the matter to the attention of the Supreme Court. Forthwith, he shall cease to be a
member and his name shall be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Reinstatement may be made in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board of
Governors and approved by the Court, provided that any written application for reinstatement must be
filed with the Board, which shall, within fifteen (15) days from receipt, forward the same to the Court
with its appropriate recommendation.

Sec. 22. Retirement; reinstatement. - Any member in good standing who shall have attained the age of
seventy-five years, or who shall have been forty years as lawyer shall, by reason of physical disability or
judicially adjudged mental incapacity, be unable to engage in the practice of Law, may be retired from
the Integrated Bar upon verified petition to the Board of Governors. Retired members shall not practice
law or be required to pay dues.

A retired member may be reinstated to active membership upon written application to and approval by
the Board.

The Board shall make periodic reports of retirement and reinstatement of members to the Supreme
Court.

ARTICLE II.

[Sections 23 to 25]

DUES

Sec. 23. Membership dues. - On or before the 31st day of December, every member of the Integrated
Bar shall pay annual dues for the ensuing fiscal year in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS at the
National Office or at the office of his Chapter, to take effect on January 1, 1995. (As amended pursuant
to Bar Matter No. 668).

Membership dues shall be apportioned as follows: Chapter share - P200.00; General Fund - P150.00;
Welfare Fund - P40.00; Legal Aid - P20.00; Bar Discipline - P20.00; and IBP Journal - P70.00. (As amended
pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668).

Subject to approval by the Supreme Court, the Board of Governors may increase the annual
membership dues, or modify the apportionment thereof. (As amended on January 30, 1992).

THE IBP LIFE MEMBERSHIP PLAN

(As amended in accordance with and pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated August 20, 1999,
increasing the life membership fee to P8,500.00 effective as of January 1, 1999)

A member of the IBP may apply for life membership therein by filing an application therefor directly
with the national office or through the appropriate chapter under the following
terms:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(l) That the member shall be in good standing as provided for under Section 20, Article II of these By-
Laws at the time he files his application for life membership;

(2) That he pays to the national office his life membership fee in the sum of Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00); and

(3) That he abides by the rules and regulations promulgated by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
implementing the life membership plan. Upon payment of the life membership fee of Five Thousand
Pesos (P5,000.00), the member shall be enrolled in the Roll of Life Members to be prepared by and kept
in the Office of the Treasurer of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. He shall be issued a certificate of
life membership to be signed by the national president and attested by the National Secretary.

The life membership fee of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) shall be deposited in a reputable banking
institution chosen by the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as a perpetual trust fund
which shall earn interest at the best possible rate per annum.

Only the annual income of the life membership trust fund shall be available for expenditure of the IBP
and shall be applied as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(1) To the payment of the life member's annual dues as provided in Section 23, Article III of these By-
Laws;

(2) Fifty percent of the balance of the income, if any, shall be automatically appropriated for the
operational expenses of the Committee on Bar Discipline, including the salaries of the national
investigators or commissioners and the staff of the Committee;

(3) The other fifty percent of the balance, if any, shall be deposited as part of the life membership trust
fund.

Any life member, whose membership in the IBP terminates by retirement or for any other cause, shall
cease to be a life member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. (As amended pursuant to Supreme
Court Resolution dated October 27, 1992).

All lawyers shall indicate in all pleadings, motions and papers signed and filed by them in any court in
the Philippines - and in the case of government lawyers, in all official documents issued by them - the
number and date of their official receipt indicating payment of their annual membership dues to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the current year, or in the case of life members, their life
membership roll number. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668).

Sec. 24. Effect of non-payment of dues. - Except for the fiscal year 1974- 1975, any member who has not
paid his membership dues for any given fiscal year on or before the last day (June 30) of the
immediately preceding fiscal year shall be considered as dues-delinquent members. For the fiscal year
1974-1975 any member who has not paid the annual dues on or before November 30, 1974 shall be
considered a dues-delinquent. If the delinquency continues until the following December 31, the Board
of Governors shall by Resolution forthwith suspend all his membership privileges other than the practice
of law. A copy of such Resolution shall be sent by registered mail to the member and to the secretary of
the Chapter concerned. The Board shall promptly inquire into the cause or causes of the delinquency
and take whatever action it shall deem appropriate, including a recommendation to the Supreme Court
for the suspension of the delinquent member from the practice of law.

Should the deliquency further continue until the following June 29, the Board shall promptly inquire into
the cause or causes of the continued delinquency and take whatever action it shall deem appropriate,
including a recommendation to the Supreme Court for the removal of the delinquent member's name
from the Roll of Attorneys. Notice of the action taken shall be sent by registered mail to the member
and to the Secretary of the Chapter concerned. Whenever a delinquent member makes full payment of
the membership dues owing, plus a sum equivalent to ten (10) percent thereof, such fact shall, without
delay, be reported to the Board, which shall take such action as may be warranted. A member whose
name is removed from the Roll of Attorneys pursuant to the provision of this Section may apply for
reinstatement under the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 21 (Voluntary termination of n
membership; reinstatement).

Sec. 25. Remission or lifting of sanctions. - The Board of Governors may, for justifiable reasons, remit or
lift sanctions already imposed and authorize the retroactive reinstatement of the member concerned.
However, sanctions imposed or approved by the Supreme Court may be remitted or lifted only by the
Court.

ARTICLE IV.

[Sections 26 to 29]

CHAPTERS

Sec. 26. Chapters. - A Chapter of the Integrated Bar shall be organized in every province existing on the
date of the effectivity of the Integration Rule. Except as hereinbelow provided, every city shall be
considered part of the province within which it was geographically situated prior to its creation as a city.

A separate Chapter shall be organized in each of the following political subdivisions or

areas:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) The sub-province of Aurora;

(b) Each congressional district of the City of Manila existing on the date of the effectivity of the
Integration Rule;

(c) Quezon City;

(d) Caloocan City, Malabon and Navotas;

(e) Pasay City, Makati, Mandaluyong and San Juan del Monte;

(f) Cebu City; and

(g) Zamboanga City, Basilan Cites and Basilan province.

The Board of Governors shall reorganize the various Chapters of cities and provinces, by division or
merger, to the end that, as far as practicable, no chapter shall have more than one thousand nor less
than five hundred members beginning the fiscal year 1977-1978.

The Board shall study the feasibility of organizing Chapters in new provinces.

Sec. 27. Coordination of Chapter activities. - The Board shall coordinate and supervise the activities of all
the Chapters for purposes of promoting maximum lawyer participation in Integrated Bar affairs, and
effective administration and operation of the organization.

Sec. 28. Chapter local government. - Each Chapter shall have its own government.

Sec. 29. Uniform by-laws. - Every Chapter shall strictly observe the following by-laws, but the Board of
Officers of any Chapter may submit for consideration and action by the Board of Governors such
additional provisions as may be demanded by local conditions.

ARTICLE V.

[Sections 30 to 36]

HOUSE OF DELEGATES

Sec. 30. Composition of the House. - The Integrated Bar shall have a House of Delegates composed of
not more than one hundred and twenty members apportioned among all the Chapters. On or before
December 31, 1974, and every two years thereafter, the Board of Governors shall make a
reappointment of Delegates among all the Chapters as nearly as may be according to the number of
their respective members, but each Chapter shall have at least one Delegate.

Sec. 31. Membership. - The membership of the House of Delegates shall consist of all the Chapter
Presidents and in the case of Chapters entitled to more than one Delegate each, the Vice Presidents of
the Chapters and such additional Delegates as the Chapters are entitled to. Unless the Vice President is
already a Delegate, he shall be an alternate Delegate. Additional Delegates and alternates shall in
proper cases be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter. Members of the Board of Governors
who are not Delegates shall be members ex oficio of the House, without the right to vote.

Sec. 32. Term of office. - The term of office of additional and alternate Delegates shall be coterminous
with that of Chapter Delegates.

Sec. 33. Annual convention. -

(a) Unless for special reasons, another date is set by the Board of Governors, the House shall hold an
annual convention during the month of April of each year, at the call of the Board, at such time and
place as the Board shall determine. Each Region shall be entitled to host one annual or special
convention every nine years. The convention program shall be prepared by the Board. No convention of
the House of Delegates nor of the general membership shall be held prior to any election in an election
year. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491).

(b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall be the Chairman and Vice-Chairman,
respectively, of the House of Delegates. The Secretary, Treasurer, and Sergeant-at-Arms shall be
appointed by the President with the consent of the House of Delegates. (As amended pursuant to Bar
Matter 491)

(c) At or prior to the annual convention, there shall be published an address by the President on the
state of the Integrated Bar, a report of the proceedings, reports of officers and committees, and
recommendations submitted in connection with these reports.

(d) Any matter not included in the published convention program may be considered, debated or acted
upon by the House, upon written petition signed by at least twenty Delegates.

(e) During the deliberations, no person shall speak for more than five minutes or more than twice on the
same matter, unless otherwise authorized by the Chairman.

(f) The House shall be a deliberative body of the Integrated Bar, and its resolutions shall bind the
Integrated Bar when concurred in by the Board of Governors.

(g) At all deliberations of the House, whether in annual or special convention, the Robert's Rules of
Order shall govern.

Sec. 34. Special convention. - Special conventions of the House may be called by the Board of Governors
motu proprio, or upon written petition therefor filed with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar signed by
not less than thirty Delegates. The Board shall set the date, time and place for each special convention.
Notice shall be given to all Delegates at least thirty days before the convention, stating the purpose and
the urgency thereof as well as the business to be transacted thereat.

Sec. 35. Quorum. - The Delegates present at any session of a convention shall constitute a quorum to do
business.

Sec. 36. Duties of Delegates. - The Delegates shall attend every convention of the House, promote the
work of the convention, and make reports of the proceedings thereof to their respective Chapters.

ARTICLE VI.

[Sections 37 to 46]
BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sec. 37. Composition of the Board. - The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be governed by a Board
of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9) regions as delineated in Section 3 of the
Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one (1) Governor for each region to be elected by the
members of the House of Delegates from that region only. The position of Governor should be rotated
among the different Chapters in the Region. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491).

Sec. 38. Term of office. - The Governors shall hold office for a term of two years from July 1 immediately
following their election to June 30 of their second year in office and until their successors shall have
been duly chosen and qualified.

Sec. 39. Nomination and election of the Governors. - At least one (1) month before the national
convention the delegates from each region shall elect the governor for their region, the choice of which
shall as much as possible be rotated among the chapters in the region. (As amended pursuant to Bar
Matter 491).

Sec. 40. Election contests. - Any nominee desiring to contest an election shall, within two days after the
announcement of the results of the elections, file with the President of the Integrated Bar a written
protest setting forth the grounds therefor. Upon receipt of such petition, the President shall forthwith
call a special meeting of the outgoing Board of Governors to consider and hear the protest, with due
notice to the contending parties. The decision of the Board shall be announced not later than the
following May 31, and shall be final and conclusive.

Sec. 41. Functions of the Board. - The Board of Governors shall have general charge of the affairs and
activities of the Integrated Bar. It shall have authority, inter alia, to:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) Fix the date, time and place of every convention of the House of Delegates, subject to the provisions
of Sections 33 (Annual convention) and 34 (Special conventions);

(b) Make appropriations and authorize disbursements from the funds of the Integrated Bar, subject to
the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Integration Rule and Section 5 (Positions honorary) of these By-Laws;

(c) Engage the services of employees, define their duties and fix their compensation;

(d) Receive, consider and act on reports and recommendations submitted by the House of Delegates or
its committees;

(e) Provide for the publication of the Journal of the Integrated Bar;

(f) Administer the Welfare Fund in accordance with such rules and regulations as it may promulgate;

(g) Fill vacancies, however arising in the positions of officers of the Integrated Bar, subject to the
provisions of Sec. 8 of the Integration Rule, and Section 11 (Vacancies), Section 44 (Removal of
members), Section 47 (National officers), Section 48 (Other officers), and Section 49 (Terms of office) of
these By-Laws;

(h) Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, promulgate Canons of Professional Responsibility for
all members of the Integrated Bar;

(i) Promulgate rules and regulations for the establishment and maintenance of lawyer referral services
throughout the Philippines;

(j) Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, impose special assessments for specific national
purposes, and impose, or recommend in proper cases to the Court the imposition of, sanctions for non-
payment or delinquency in the payment thereof;

(k) Prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out the objectives and
purposes of the Integrated Bar as well as the provisions of the Integration Rule and Presidential Decree
No. 181; and

(1) Perform such other functions as may be necessary or expedient in the interest of the Integrated Bar.

Sec. 42. Meetings. - The Board shall meet regularly once a month, on such date and such time and place
as it shall designate. Special meetings may be called by the President, and shall be called by him upon
the written request of five members of the Board.

Sec. 43. Quorum. - Five members of the Board shall constitute a quorum to transact business. However,
the Board may take action, without a meeting, by resolution signed by at least five Governors provided
that every member of the Board shall have been previously apprised of the contents of the resolution.

Sec. 44. Removal of members. - If the Board of Governors should determine after proper inquiry that
any of its members, elective or otherwise, has for any reason become unable to perform his duties, the
Board, by resolution of the majority of the remaining members, may declare his position vacant, subject
to the approval of the Supreme Court. Any member of the Board, elective or otherwise, may be
removed for cause, including three consecutive absences from Board meetings without justifiable
excuse, by resolution adopted by two-thirds of the remaining members of the Board, subject to the
approval of the Supreme Court. In case of any vacancy in the office of Governor for whatever cause, the
delegates from the region shall, by majority vote, elect a successor from among the members of the
Chapter to which the resigned governor is a member to serve as governor for the unexpired portion of
the term. (As amended pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated March 2. 1993).

Sec. 45. Executive Committee. - There shall be an Executive Committee of not less than three Governors,
the powers, functions, duties and responsibilities of which shall be as prescribed by the Board. The
President shall be the chairman thereof.
Sec. 46. Urgent matters. - Should the Executive Committee consider it desirable and imperative that any
matter be decided urgently by the Board, and it is not practicable or expedient for the Board to convene,
the Executive Committee may, for the purpose, direct a poll of all the members of the Board on that
matter, to be taken by correspondence, telegram, radiogram, cablegram, or any other expeditous
means, and the effect of such a poll shall be the same as if the votes therein were cast at a regular
meeting of the Board.

ARTICLE VII.

[Sections 47 to 51]

NATIONAL OFFICERS

Sec. 47. National Officers. - The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President and Executive
Vice President to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as much
as practicable, on a rotation basis. The governors shall be ex officio Vice President for their respective
regions. There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the
President with the consent of the Board. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491).

The Executive Vice President shall automatically become President for the next succeeding term. The
Presidency shall rotate among the nine Regions.

Sec. 48. Other officers. - Other officers and employees as the Board may require shall be appointed by
the President with the consent of the Board. Such officers and employees need not be members of the
Integrated Bar.

Sec. 49. Terms of office. - The President and the Executive Vice President shall hold office for a term of
two years from July 1 following their election until June 30 of their second year in office and until their
successors shall have been duly chosen and qualified. In the event the President is absent or unable to
act, his functions and duties shall be performed by the Executive Vice President, and in the event of the
death, resignation, or removal of the President, the Executive Vice President shall serve as Acting
President for the unexpired portion of the term. In the event of the death, resignation, removal or
disability of both the President and the Executive Vice President, the Board of Governors shall elect an
Acting President to hold office for the unexpired portion of the term or during the period of disability.
Unless otherwise provided in these By-Laws , all other officers and employees appointed by the
President with the consent of the Board shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board or for such term as
the Board may fix.

Sec. 50. Duties of officers. - (a) President: The President shall be the chief executive of the Integrated
Bar, and shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Governors.

From assumption of office and for the duration of his termed the President shall dissociate himself from
any and all activities that may, in one way or another, restrict or hamper the effective exercise of his
powers and performance of his functions and duties.

(b) Executive Vice President: The Executive Vice President shall exercise the powers and perform the
functions and duties of the President during the absence or inability of the latter to act, and shall
perform such other functions and duties as are assigned to him by the President and the Board of
Governors.

(c) Governors: In addition to his duties as a member of the Board of Governors, each elective Governor
shall act as representative of his Region in the Board. He shall promote, coordinate and correlate
activities of the Chapters within his Region.

(d) Secretary: The Secretary shall attend all meetings of the Board of Governors, and keep a record of all
the proceedings thereof; prepare and maintain a register of all members of the Integrated Bar; notify
national officers as well as members of national committees of their election or appointments; cause to
be prepared the necessary official ballots for the election of Governors; and perform such other duties
as are assigned to him by these By-Laws, by the President and by the Board of Governors.

(e) Treasurer: The Treasurer shall collect, receive, recorder and disburse ad funds of the Integrated Bar;
however, no disbursement shall be made except over his signature, countersigned by the President or,
in the absence or inability of the President, by the Executive Vice President, or in the absence or inability
of both, by a member of the Executive Committee designated by the President. He shall render reports
of receipts and disbursements as required by the Board of Governors; promptly remit to the Chapters
concerned their proportionate shares in the dues and assessments paid by members directly to the
national office under Section 23 (Membership dues); assist in the preparation of the annual budget; and
perform such other duties as are assigned to him by these By-Laws, by the President and by the Board of
Governors. He shall furnish a surety bond at the expense of the Integrated Bar, in such amount as may
be required by the Board.

Sec. 51. Delegation of duties. - The functions and duties of the Secretary and the treasurer may, in their
absence or inability, be performed by assistants or employees of the Integrated Bar designated by the
President.

ARTICLE VIII.

[Sections 52 to 67]

NATIONAL COMMITTEES

Sec. 52. National Committees. - The Board of Governors shall establish and maintain standing national
committees. Until otherwise changed, modified or redefined by the Board, the respective names,
powers, prerogatives, functions, duties and responsibilities of the standing committees shall be as set
forth in this Article. The Board shall have authority to create additional standing committees and special
committees and to define their respective powers, prerogatives, functions, duties and responsibilities.
Every committee shall submit an annual report to the President, but the Board may, at any time, require
any committee to submit a special report.

Sec. 53. Membership of committees. - Each national committee shall consist of such number of
members as may be fixed by the Board of Governors. They shall be appointed by the President with the
consent of the Board, and shall serve for a term of two years, and until their respective successors shall
have been duly appointed and qualified. The chairman of each committee shall be designated by the
President. Three consecutive absences of any member from committee meetings without justifiable
excuse shall be a ground for the President to appoint his replacement.

Sec. 54. Committee on Chapter Affairs. - This committee shall make studies of, and submit reports and
recommendations on, the establishment, organization and operation of all Chapters, the apportionment
and reapportionment of the seats in the House of Delegates, and the means and methods of
encouraging and coordinating Chapter activities and of promoting maximum involvement and
participation of the members of the Integrated Bar in the activities thereof and of their respective
Chapters.

Sec. 55. Committee on Legal Aid. - This committee shall promote the establishment and efficient
maintenance of Chapter legal aid organizations suited to provide free legal service; direct and supervise
all Chapter legal aid organizations; maintain maximum levels of coordination and cooperation with other
organizations having similar objectives; receive and solicit aid and assistance from any available and
suitable source or sources, provided that the independent character of the legal aid is not impaired; and,
in general, do or cause to be done all things necessary and proper for the promotion of legal aid
activities, projects and objectives.

Sec. 56. Committee on Administration of Justice. - This committee shall study the organization and
operation of the judicial system and recommend appropriate changes in practice and procedure to
improve the efficiency thereof, and, in that connection, shall examine all proposed changes in the
system. It shall collate information and submit appropriate recommendations on judicial appointments,
judicial tenure and compensation, and retirement pensions.

Sec. 57. Committee on Legal Education and Bar Admissions. - This committee shall make continuing
studies of, and submit recommendations on, the curriculum and teaching methods in law schools, as
well as standards and methods in determining the qualifications of applicants for admission to the Bar
and, whenever requested, shall assist in the investigation of the qualifications of persons seeking
admission to the Bar. It shall formulate and promote or co-sponsor with other groups of institutions,
programs designed to afford members of the Integrated Bar suitable opportunities for acquiring, here
and abroad, additional professional knowledge, training and skill.

Sec. 58. Committee on Professional Responsibility, Discipline and Disbarment. - This committee shall
formulate the Canons of Professional Responsibility for adoption by the Board of Governors and
approval by the Supreme Court, and submit recommendations on methods for the effective
enforcement thereof as well as on appropriate amendments thereto. It shall have authority to express
advisory opinions, upon written request of any member, on any matter affecting his own professional
conduct. In no case shall the opinion of the committee disclose the name of any party. The committee
may call upon any Chapter officer or Chapter committee member to exchange information as to
problems arising under the Canons of Professional Responsibility, and to examine grievance procedures.
It shall make recommendations to the Board of Governors for reforms and improvements in the said
procedures.

Sec. 59. Committee on Research Services. - This committee shall plan the research services of the
Integrated Bar in substantive and adjective laws and, together with other institutions, promote legal
research and law reform and development. It shall select areas of the law in need of general study,
revision or codification; formulate plans and prepare budgets for specific research projects; assess the
availability of qualified personnel to perform research work; and submit recommendations thereon. It
shall periodically render progress reports on authorized research projects, and provide necessary
supervision for the successful completion of each project.

Sec. 60. Committee on Legislation. - This committee shall study all proposed changes in the Constitution
and in statutes and laws of general interests or general application and submit reports thereon and,
upon the approval of the Board of Governors, shall represent the Integrated Bar in supporting or
opposing such proposals.

Sec. 61. Committee on Public Services. - This committee shall prepare and submit plans for advancing
public acceptance of the objectives and purposes of the Integrated Bar, and shall execute such plans as
are approved by the Board of Governors. These plans shall include arrangements for disseminating
information of interest to the public in relation to the functions of the departments of government, the
judicial system and the Bar; and to that end, the committee may operate an information bureau and
utilize the facilities of the media of public communication.

Sec. 62. Committee on Inter-Professional and Business Relations. - This committee shall maintain liaison
between the legal profession and other professions as well as business groups in order to acquaint the
latter on the nature and proper scope of the practice of law.

Sec. 63. Committee on Books and Publications. - This committee shall make studies of, and submit
recommendations on matters and materials for publication, and ways and means of assisting in the
efficient publications of legal literature at reasonable costs, and of discouraging unnecessary
publications or duplications thereof.

Sec. 64. Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law. - This committee shall keep the Integrated Bar
informed with respect to the practice of law by unauthorized persons and entities, as well as the
participation therein of members of the Bar, and recommend ways and means for the elimination and
prevention of unauthorized practice of law.

Sec. 65. Committee on Law Reporting. - This committee shall examine and appraise methods of
reporting and disseminating legislation, presidential decrees, court decisions, the Rules of Court, and
decisions of administrative tribunals and agencies, with particular emphasis on the correction of
deficiencies; conduct a continuing study and evaluation of corresponding trends and reforms in other
jurisdictions; and submit appropriate recommendations thereon.

Sec. 66. Public statements. - No committee or member thereof shall publicly express any opinion or
conclusion respecting the assigned functions or work of the committee without previous authorization
from the Board of Governors or the Executive Committee.

Sec. 67. Finances of committees. - Every committee shall file with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar a
detailed statement setting forth necessary data on the funds required in connection with its work for
consideration and action by the Board of Governors. No committee shall incur any obligation payable by
the Integrated Bar without the Board's prior approval.

ARTICLE IX.
[Sections 68 to 75]

FISCAL CONTROL

Sec. 68. Fiscal year. - The Integrated Bar shall operate on a fiscal year beginning on January 1 and ending
on December 31 of each year. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 668).

Sec. 69. Budget committee. - The President, with the approval of the Board of Governors, shall appoint a
budget committee consisting of not less than three or more than five Governors, with the Executive Vice
President as chairman, whose responsibility shall be the preparation of the annual budget.

Sec. 70. Preparation and approval of the budget. - The preparation, consideration, approval and
publication of the budget shall be in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board.

Sec. 71. Automatic re-enactment. - If by the end of any fiscal year, the Board shall have failed to pass the
budget for the ensuing fiscal year, the budget for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted
and shall remain in force and effect until a new budget is adopted by the Board.

Sec. 72. Amendment to the budget. - The Board may, from time to time, amend the budget in order to
provide funds for necessary expenditures: Provided, however, that the total of the increases made in
the items of the budget, including new items created by such amendments, shall not exceed ten percent
of the total estimated income of the Integrated Bar for the current fiscal year. If the proposed
amendments shall cause the total of the increases and the new items to exceed such limitation, the
same procedure required for the adoption of the original budget shall be followed.

Sec. 73. Disbursements. - No disbursement shall be made except in accordance with the budget.

Sec. 74. Unexpended balances. - All unexpended balances of appropriations shall revert at the end of
every fiscal year to the funds from which they were appropriated.

Sec. 75. Accounting and audit. - The Board shall cause books of accounts to be kept and maintained in
accordance with sound accounting practices. An annual external audit of all funds, accounts, receipts
and disbursements of the Integrated Bar shall be made without delay after the end of every fiscal year.
A summary of such audit shall be published in the following September issue of the Journal of the
Integrated Bar.

ARTICLE X.

[Section 76]

JOURNAL

Sec. 76. Journal of the Integrated Bar. - The Board of Governors shall cause to be published a quarterly
Journal, and to this end shall be assisted by a board of editorial consultants, the members of which shall
be appointed by the President, with the consent of the Board. The editorial consultants shall hold office
at the pleasure of the Board.

Every member of the Integrated Bar is entitled to receive a free copy of every issue of the Journal.

ARTICLE XI.

[Section 77]

AMENDMENTS

Sec. 77. Amendments. - These By-Laws may be amended, modified or repealed by the Supreme Court
motu proprio or upon the recommendation of the Board of Governors.

ARTICLE XII.

[Section 78]

EFFECTIVITY

Sec. 78. Effectivity. - These By-Laws shall take effect on November 1, 1974.
15. Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, A.C.
No.4749, January 20, 2000
16. Vidalyn Yamon-Leach v. Atty. Arturo B. Astorga, A.C. No. 5987, August 28, 2019
17. Manuel Valin and Honorio L. Valin v. Atty. Rolando T. Ruiz, A.C. No. 10564,
November 7, 2017
18. Emma T. Dantes v. Atty. Crispin G. Dantes, A.C. No. 6486,September 22, 2004
19. Jerry M. Palencia v. Atty. Pedro Linsangan, Atty. Gerard M.Linsangan, and Atty. Glenda
M. Linsangan-Binoya, A.C. No.10557, July 10, 2018
20. Wilfredo Catu v. Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738,February 19, 2008
21. In re: Ramon Galang, 66 SCRA 282
22. Joselano Guevarra v Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala, A.C. no. 7136,
23. Gimeno v Atty. Zaide, A.C. 10303, April 22, 2015
24. Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares v. Atty. Roberto “Argee” C.Guevarra, A.C. No. 11394,
December 1, 2016
25. Tapay v. Atty. Bancolo, et.al., A.C. No. 9604, March 20, 2013
26. Tolentino v. Atty. Millado and Atty. Sibayan, A.C. No. 10737,November 9, 2015
27. Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., Employees Association v. Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd., G.R. No. L-25291, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 244
28. Zaldivar v. Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316
29. In Re: Almacen, G.R. no. L-27654, February 18, 1970
30. Monticillo v. Gica 60 SCRA 235
31. People v Jardin 124 SCRA 167
32. Garcia v Francisco, A.C. No. 3923, March 30, 1993
33. Re: Show cause order in the decision dated May 11, 2018 in G.R.No. 237428 (Republic
of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P.A.
sereno) A.M. No.18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018
34. Ruel Tuano y Hernandez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.205871, September 28,
2016
35. Norma and Josephine G. Umali v. People of the Philippines, G.R.No. 211917, February
27, 2017
36. Joy T. Samonte v. Atty. Vivencio V. jumamil, A.C. no. 11668, July 17, 2017
37. Paces Industrial Corporation v Atty. Edgardo M. Salandanan, A.C. No. 1346, July 25,
2017
38. Mabini Colleges, Inc. v. Pajarillo, A.C. No. 10687, July 22, 2015
39. Aquino v. Cabasa, G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015
40. Heirs of Juan de Dios E. Carlos v. Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan, A.C.No. 11494, July 24,
2017
41. Atty. Agustin v. Cruz-Herrera, G.R. No. 174564, February 12,2014
42. Atty. Roxas v. Republic Real Estate Corp., G.R. No. 208205, June1, 2016
43. Heirs of Sixto L. Tan, Sr., represented by Recto A. Tan v. Atty.Nestor B. Beltran, A.C.
No. 5819, February 1, 2017
44. Marilou Balabas, et. al. v. Roberto L. Uy Realty & DevelopmentCorporation, G.R. No.
187544, October 3, 2016
45. People v Sy Juco, 64 Phil 667
46. Go v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 165
47. Sabitsana Jr. v. Villamor, 202 SCRA 445
48. Borromeo v. Mariano, 41 Phil 322
49. Arban v. Birja, 143 SCRA 634
50. Abad v. Bleza, 145 SCRA 1
51. Jacinto v. Vallarta, 453 SCRA 83
52. Masangacay v. Aggabao, 238 SCRA 427
53. Cabrera v. Pajares, 142 SCRA 127
54. OCA v. Judge Hermoso, 150 SCRA 278
55. Martinez v. Pahimulin, 116 SCRA 136
56. Tan, Jr. v. Gallardo, 73 SCRA 315
57. Felongco v. Dictado, 223 SCRA 696
58. Datuin, Jr. v. Soriano, 391 SCRA 2
59. Palang v. Zosa, 58 SCRA 776
60. Pimentel v. Salanga, 21 SCRA 160
61. Geotina v. Gonzales, 41 SCRA 69
62. Oktubre v. Valano, 434 SCRA 636
63. Dayuno v. Barillo, 472 SCRA 218
64. Padilla v. Zantua, Jr., 237 SCRA 670
65. J. King and Sons v. Hontanosas, Jr., 438 SCRA 527
66. Carual v. Brusala, 317 SCRA 54
67. Omico Mining & Industrial Corp. v. Judge Vallejos, 63 SCRA 285
68. Cabreana v. Avelino, 107 SCRA 640
69. Balasabas v. Aquilizan, 106 SCRA 489
70. Re: Complaint Against Justice Asuncion of the Court of Appeals, A.M. No. 06-6-8-CA,
518 SCRA 512 (Atty. Padilla v. Justice Asuncion, A.M. No. 06-44-CA-J)
71. Macalintal v. The, 280 SCRA 623
72. Boiser v. Aguirre Jr., 458 SCRA 430
73. Cruz v. Huralde, 402 SCRA 65
74. Maquiran v. Grageda, 451 SCRA 15
75. Dadula v. GineteMina v. Mupas, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2067, June 18, 2008
76. Briones v. Ante, Jr., 380 SCRA 409
77. Flora C. Mariano v. Atty. Anselmo Echavez A.C. No. 10373, May 31, 2016
78. Dr. Basilio Malvar v. Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros, A.C. No. 11346, March 8, 2017
79. Bar Matter No. 702, May 12, 1994
80. Marilu C. Turla v. Atty. Jose M. Caringal, A.C. No. 11641, March 12, 2019