ARC2020.SCD2017-2018 Cases in Legal and Judicial Ethics

Survey of Significant SC Decisions in
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

By: Dean Ed Vincent S. Albano
Bar Review Director
THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Q – State the nature of the legal profession. Explain.

ANS: All those in legal profession must always conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in all their
dealings. Members of the bar took their oath to conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients and to delay no man for money or
malice. These mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers with their client considering the highly fiduciary
nature of their relationship.
It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the
privilege and right to practice law during good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct
ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has afforded him. Without
invading any constitutional privilege or right, and attorney’s right to practice law may be resolved by a
proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the
duties and responsibilities of an attorney. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof (Taday v. Atty. Dionisio Apoya, Jr., A.C. No. 11981, July
3, 2018).
Q – State the nature of practice of law. Explain.

ANS: The practice of law is imbued with public interest and that a lawyer owes substantial duties, not only to
his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the public, and takes part in the
administration of justice, one of the most important functions of the State, as an officer of the court. Accordingly,
lawyers are bound to maintain, not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty,
integrity, and fair dealing.
The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they
possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair
dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he
shall be of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to the admission to the
legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the profession.
Consequently, a lawyer can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of
the Court after giving him the opportunity to be heard (Yap v. Atty. Grace Berri, A.C. No. 11156, March 19, 2018,
Peralta, J).
Conduct unbecoming of judge; practice of law of judge.
Q – During the hearing of an administrative case against the wife of a judge, he seated beside his
daughter, the lawyer of his wife and assisted his daughter in the hearing. Is he guilty of conduct
unbecoming of a judge since he unabashedly introduced himself as counsel for the counsel? Why?
ANS: Yes. He ought to have restrained himself from sitting at that hearing, being all too aware that his sitting
would have him cross the line beyond which was the private practice of law.
The term practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or to participation in court
proceedings, but extends to the preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of a litigation, the giving of
legal advice to clients or persons needing the same, the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which
legal rights are secured, and the preparation of papers incident to actions and special proceedings (Ziga v.
Arejola, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1203, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 361, 368). To the Court, then, the judge engaged in the
private practice of law by assisting his daughter at his wife’s administrative case, coaching his daughter in
making manifestations or posing motions to the hearing officer (Decena v. Judge Malanyaon, A.M. No. RTJ-10-
2217, April 8, 2013, Bersamin, J).
Q – May a Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school be admitted to the Philippine Bar
Examination? Explain.
ANS: Yes. Section 5 of B.M. 1153 provides that a Filipino citizen “who graduated from a foreign law school shall
be admitted to the bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of certifications showing: (a)
completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or
accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and (c) completion of all fourth year subjects in the
Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government” (Bar Matter
1 | ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

No. 1153, Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar Examinations through Amendments
to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, March 9, 2010).
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her degree in Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent
in a foreign law school must also present proof of completion of a separate bachelor’s degree.
Malpractice a ground for suspension; legal profession is not a business.
Q – A lawyer together with a paralegal went to a hospital several times to convince complainant to hire
their services. Is the act a case of malpractice where the SC can suspend the lawyer? Explain.
ANS: Yes. The practice of law is a profession and not a business. Lawyers are reminded to avoid at all times any
act that would tend to lessen the confidence of the public in the legal profession as a noble calling, including,
among others, the manner by which he makes known his legal services.
A lawyer in making known his legal services must do so in a dignified manner. They are prohibited
from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers. The CPR
explicitly states that “a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.” Corollary to this duty is for lawyers not to encourage any suit or proceeding for any corrupt motive
or interest. Thus, “ambulance chasing,” or the solicitation of almost any kind of business by an attorney,
personally or through an agent, in order to gain employment, is proscribed.
In employing paralegals to encourage complainant to file a lawsuit against his employers, the lawyer
indirectly solicited legal business and encouraged the filing of suit. These constitute malpractice which calls for
the exercise of the court’s disciplinary powers and warrants serious sanctions (Palencia v. Atty. Pedro
Linsangan, et al., A.C. No. 10557, July 10, 2018).
Q – What is the primary duty of a lawyer? Explain.

ANS: A lawyer's primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct that tends to
delay, impede, or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes this obligation (Teodoro III v. Gonzales,
702 Phil. 422, 431 [2013]). Indeed, a lawyer must champion his client's cause with competence and diligence,
but he cannot invoke this as an excuse for his failure to exhibit courtesy and fairness to his fellow lawyers and
to respect legal processes designed to afford due process to all stakeholders (Festin v. Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri,
A.C. No. 11600, June 19, 2017, Perlas-Bernabe, J).
Q – Relationship between a lawyer and client is highly fiduciary. Explain.

ANS: The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary. This relationship holds a lawyer to a
great degree of fidelity and good faith especially in handling money or property of his clients. Thus, Canon 16
and its rules remind a lawyer to: (1) hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession; (2) deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand subject to his retaining
lien; and (3) account for all money or property collected or received for or from his client.
Money collected by a lawyer on a judgment rendered in favor of his client constitutes trust funds and
must be immediately paid over to the client. As he holds such funds as agent or trustee, his failure to pay or
deliver the same to the client after demand constitutes conversion. Thus, whenever a lawyer collects money as
a result of a favorable judgment, he must promptly report and account the money collected to his client
(Palencia v. Atty. Pedro Linsangan, et al., A.C. No. 10557, July 10, 2018).
Q – Can we consider the practice of law, a form of public trust? Explain.

ANS: Yes. The practice of law is a profession, a form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted to
those who are qualified and who possess good moral character. Thus, the violation of the lawyer’s oath and/or
breach of the ethics of the legal profession embodied in the CPR may, depending on the exercise of sound
judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts, result in the suspension or disbarment of a member of the
Bar.
For his violation of the proscription on ambulance chasing, the Court previously imposed the penalty
of suspension of one year. It found no reason not to impose the same penalty here (Palencia v. Atty. Pedro
Linsangan, et al., A.C. No. 10557, July 10, 2018).
Suspension of Lawyer
Willful disregard of processes of the Court.
Q – An administrative complaint was filed against a lawyer. He was required to file a comment in
numerous resolutions but failed to do. He was cited in contempt. He was arrested and detained upon
order of the Court. To escape detention, he filed a motion for extension to file comment which was
granted. However, several years have passed and he has yet to file such comment. Is he guilty of willful
disobedience of the lawful orders of the SC, as well as gross misconduct? Explain.
ANS: Yes. Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondent’s deference is
underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for
contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any
other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes.
2 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

His failure to comply with the Court's directive to file a Rejoinder and to file a Comment also constitutes
gross misconduct. Gross misconduct is 'any inexcusable, shameful, flagrant, or unlawful conduct on the part of
the person concerned in the administration of justice which is prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the
right determination of a cause.' It is a 'conduct that is generally motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or
intentional purpose' (UCPB v. Atty. Lauro G. Noel, A.M No. 3951, June 18, 2018, Gesmundo, J).
Lawyer owes fidelity to client.
Q – A lawyer was suspended when he received money for the purpose of filing a case but failed to file it.
Can he be penalized? Explain.
ANS: Yes. Respondent’s failure to return the money to complainants despite failure to use the same for the
intended purpose is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety and a violation of the trust reposed on
him. His unjustified withholding of money belonging to the complainants warrants the imposition of
disciplinary action.
When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render
an accounting to the client showing that the money. was spent for the intended purpose. Conversely, if the
lawyer does not use the money for the intended purpose, he must immediately return the money to the client
(Meneses v. Atty. Macalino, 518 Phil. 378, 385 [2006]; Segovia, et al. v. Atty. Rolando S. Javier, A.C. No. 10244,
March 12, 2018, Peralta, J).
Relationship between lawyer and client; fiduciary.
Q – A lawyer’s services were engaged to register a title under the name of the client but despite
registration, he did not deliver it to the owner or representative. He fraudulently mortgaged the same.
Can he be penalized? Explain.
ANS: Yes. The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary; it demands great fidelity and
good faith on the part of the lawyer. Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) requires
lawyers to account for all money and property collected or received for and from their clients. In addition, Rule
16.03 mandates that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.
He was guilty of abused of his client’s trust and confidence. Canon 17 of the CPR directs a lawyer to be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him (Gonzales v. Atty. Frisco B. Santos, A.C. No. 10178, June 19,
2018, Jardeleza, J).
Effect of misappropriation of client’s money.
Q – A lawyer was suspended for having failed to return money received by him for his client. Can he be
penalized? Explain.
ANS: Yes. Jurisprudence is instructive that a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the monies he/she holds
for his/her client gives rise to the presumption that he/she has appropriated the said monies for his/her own
use, to the prejudice and in violation of the trust reposed in him/her by his/her client (Punla v. Maravilla-Ona,
A.C. No. 11149, August 15, 2017).
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great
fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the
money or property collected or received for or from his client (Navarro v. Atty. Solidum, Jr., 725 Phil. 358, 368
[2014]). Thus, a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this
case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust
reposed in him by his client (Adrimisin v. Atty. Javier, 532 Phil. 639, 645-646 [2006]; Yuzon v. Atty. Arnulfo M.
Agleron, A.C. No. 106684, January 24, 2018, Peralta, J).
Failure to uphold integrity of legal profession; suspended.
Q – A lawyer was suspended due to his failure to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. In an
administrative complaint against him, a young daughter of the complainant testified that the lawyer
invited her and her mother to sleep with him on the same bed. From the bathroom, she saw the lawyer
emerged clad in a towel and suddenly entered the room. His defense was that, he could not have
committed immoral conduct, he being a respectable family man and civic leader and that he was merely
assisting the woman in the custody case over the child between the husband and wife. While the case
was pending, the complainant passed away. Will the case continue? Why?
ANS: Yes. The case can proceed in spite of complainant’s death and the apparent lack of interest on the part of
complainant’s heirs. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in nature: they are intended and
undertaken primarily to look into the conduct of behavior of lawyers, to determine whether they are still fit to
exercise the privileges of the legal profession, and to hold them accountable for any misconduct or misbehavior
which deviates from the mandated norms and standards of the Code of Professional Responsibility, all of which
are needful and necessary to the preservation of the integrity of the legal profession. Because not chiefly or
primarily intended to administer punishment, such proceedings do not call for the active service of prosecutors
(Gonzales v. Atty. Alcaraz, 534 Phil. 471, 482 [2006]; See also Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pools, Inc. v. Atty.

Naldoza, 374 Phil. 1, 10-11 [1999]; Fabugais v. Atty. Bernardo C. Faundo, Jr., A.C. No. 10145, June 11, 2018, Del
Castillo, J).
Failure to maintain standard efficiency; lawyer was suspended.
Q – A lawyer was suspended for his failure to perform his duties for his client. After the decision in a
labor case by the NLRC ordering the client to pay, and despite receipt of the decision, he did not inform
the client and did not elevate it to the CA. The reason given by the lawyer was that the client has no
properties and money. May the lawyer be suspended because of negligence in the performance of his
duties? Explain.
ANS: Yes. The relationship between a lawyer and a client is imbued with utmost trust and confidence. Lawyers
are expected to exercise the necessary diligence and competence in managing cases entrusted to them. They
commit not only to review cases or give legal advice, but also to represent their clients to the best of their ability
without the need to be reminded by either the client or the court.
Clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise
the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a
high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless
of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyer's duty of competence and diligence
includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel's care or giving sound legal advice, but also
consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or
conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable
dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.
Therefore, a lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary action (De Leon v. Atty.
Antonio A. Geronimo, A.C. No. 10441, February 14, 2018, Peralta, J).
Neglect of duties; a ground for suspension.
Q – A lawyer was charged due to infidelity to the cause of his client by not appearing in the scheduled
hearings, thus, contributing to the delay of the case. Can she be penalized? Why?
ANS: Yes. A member of the legal profession owes his/her client entire devotion to the latter’s genuine interest,
and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his/her rights (Camara v. Atty. Reyes, 612 Phil. 1, 7 [2009]).
An attorney is expected to exert his/her best efforts and ability to preserve his/her client’s cause, for the
unwavering loyalty displayed to his/her client, likewise, serves the ends of justice. Verily, the entrusted
privilege to practice law carries with it the corresponding duties, not only to the client, but also to the court, to
the bar and to the public (Cabuello v. Atty. Editha Talaboc, A.C. No. 10532, November 7, 2017, Peralta, J).
Lawyer was suspended; failure to pay obligation.
Q – May a lawyer be suspended for failure to pay an obligation to the vendor. She was the vendee in a
contract of sale of a realty but there was an unpaid balance of the purchase price which she refused and
failed to pay. Explain.
ANS: Yes. As a lawyer, an enduring high sense of responsibility and good fidelity in all her dealings and
emphasize the high standard of honesty and fairness expected of her, not only in the practice of the legal
profession, but in her personal dealings as well. A lawyer must conduct himself with great propriety, and his
behavior should be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times. For, as officers of the courts and keepers of the
public's faith, they are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility and are thus mandated to
behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor. Likewise, the oath that lawyers swear to
impresses upon them the duty of exhibiting the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor in their
relationships with others. Thus, lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional or
in their private capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court (Ong v. Atty.
Delos Santos, 728 Phil. 332, 339 [2014]; Yap v. Atty. Grace Buri, A.C. No. 11156, March 19, 2018, Peralta, J).
Son of a lawyer may purchase a property subject of litigation.
Q – May the son of a lawyer purchase a property subject of litigation where his father is the lawyer?
Explain.
ANS: Yes. Undeniably, Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code prohibits the purchase by lawyers of any interest in the
subject matter of the litigation in which they participated by reason of their profession. Here, however,
respondent lawyer was not the purchaser or buyer of the property or rights in litigation. For, in point of fact, it
was his son Julius, and not respondent lawyer, who purchased the subject property. The rationale advanced for
the prohibition in Article 1491(5) is that public policy disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary
relationship involved, i.e., the relation of trust and confidence and the peculiar control exercised by these
persons. It is founded on public policy because, by virtue of his office, an attorney may easily take advantage of
the credulity and ignorance of his client and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client.
Concededly, Article 1491 provides that "[t]he following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a
public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another xx x." However, perusal of the
records would show that complainant failed to adduce any shred of evidence that Julius acted or mediated on

behalf of respondent lawyer, or that respondent lawyer was the ultimate beneficiary of the sale transaction.
The mere fact that it was Julius, son of respondent lawyer, who purchased the property, will not support the
allegation that respondent lawyer violated Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code.
The "prohibition which rests on considerations of public policy and interests is intended to curtail any
undue influence of the lawyer upon his client on account of his fiduciary and confidential relationship with him"
(Zalamea v. De Guzman, Jr., A.C. No. 7387, November 7, 2016, 807 SCRA 1, 6-7; Santos v. Atty. Joseph Arrojado,
A.C. No. 8502, June 27, 2018, Del Castillo, J).
In Sabidong v. Solas, it was clearly ruled: "For the prohibition to apply, the sale or assignment of the
property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property" (A.M. No. P-01-1448,
June 25, 2013, 699 SCRA 303, 320; Palacios v. Atty. Amora, Jr., A.C. No. 11504, August 1, 2017).
ATTORNEY’S FEES
50% stipulated attorney’s fees is excessive.
Q – Is a stipulated amount of 50% attorney’s fees valid? Why?

ANS: No. Generally, the amount of attorney’s fees due is that stipulated in the retainer agreement which is
conclusive as to the amount of the lawyers compensation. In the absence thereof, the amount of attorney’s fees
is fixed on the basis of quantum meruit, i.e., the reasonable worth of the attorney’s services. Courts may
ascertain also if the attorney’s fees are found to be excessive, what is reasonable under the circumstances. In
no case, however, must a lawyer be allowed to recover more than what is reasonable, pursuant to Section 24,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees.” Rule 20.01 of the same canon enumerates the following factors which should guide a lawyer
in determining his fees:
a) The time spent and the extent of the services 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 (Cortez v. Atty. Hernando Cortez, A.C. No. 9119, March 12,
2018, Tijam, J).
DISBARMENT
Q – May the Integrated Bar of the Philippines investigate government lawyers who are charged with
administrative offenses in relation to their official duties? Explain.
ANS: No. The 1987 Constitution clothes the Office of the Ombudsman with the administrative disciplinary
authority to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any government official when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient (Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 13, par. [1]). The Office of the
Ombudsman is the government agency responsible for enforcing administrative, civil, and criminal liability of
government officials "in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the
Government to the people" (Sec. 13, R.A. No. 6770). In Samson v. Restrivera, A.C. No. 8168, October 12, 2016
the Court ruled that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses 11 kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance,
and non-feasance committed by any public officer or employee during his or her tenure. Consequently, acts or
missions of public officials relating to the performance of their function as government officials are within the
administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman (Alicias, Sr. v. Atty. Myrna Macatangay,
et al., A.C. No. 7478, January 11, 2017, Carpio, J).
Q – Who has the power to discipline members of the Bar? Explain.

ANS: The Supreme Court has the power to discipline officers of the court and members of the court and
members of the Bar. The Supreme Court, as regular and guardian of the legal profession, has plenary
disciplinary authority over attorneys. The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court’s constitutional
mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to regulate the practice
itself of law. Quite apart from this constitutional mandate, the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over
members of the Bar is an inherent power incidental to the proper administration of justice and essential to an
orderly discharge of judicial functions.
The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is but corollary to the Court’s exclusive
power of admission to the Bar. A lawyer is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court and as such,
he is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society.
(Bernardino v. Atty. Victor Rey Santos, A.C. No. 10583; Atty. Jose Caringal v. Atty. Santos, A.C. No. 10583 &
10584, February 18, 2015, Leonen, J citing Zaldivar v. SB, 248 Phil. 542 [1988]).

Q – Is the Constitution the only basis of the power to discipline members of the Bar? Explain.
ANS: No. The Court’s authority is restated under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides that a member
of the bar may be disbarred 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
admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Sec. 27; Atty. Jose Caringal v. Atty. Santos, A.C. No. 10583 &
10584, February 18, 2015, Leonen, J).
Q – What is the role of the Integrated Bar of the Phils. in the SC’s power to discipline lawyers? Explain.
ANS: The authority of the court to impose disciplinary action on those admitted to the practice of law, where it
ruled that parenthetically, it is the SC that has the constitutionally mandated duty to discipline lawyers.
(Constitution [1987], Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5]). Under the current rules, the duty to assist fact finding can be delegated
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The findings of the Integrated Bar, however, can only be
recommendatory, consistent with the constitutional power of the SC. Its recommended penalties are also, by
its nature, recommendatory. (A.C. No. 10537, p. 8 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]).
The authority given to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is based on Rule 139-B, Section 1 of the
Rules of Court, which provides that “proceedings for the disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may
be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines … upon the verified
complaint of any person.” However, this authority is only to assist the Court with the investigation of the case,
to determine factual findings, and to recommend, at best, the penalty that may be imposed on the erring lawyer.
(Bernardino v. Atty. Victor Rey Santos, A.C. No. 10583; Atty. Jose Caringal v. Atty. Santos, A.C. No. 10583 &
10584, February 18, 2015; Ramirez v. Buhayang-Margallo, A.C. No. 10537 p. 8 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]).
Q – State the effect if a lawyer appeared as counsel while serving suspension. Explain.
ANS: A lawyer serving suspension when she represented her husband in a pending case may be suspended
again because of willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney of a party without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
She would have deserved a harsher penalty, but the Court recognized the fact that it is part of the
Filipino culture that amid an adversity, families will always look out and extend a helping hand to a family
member, more so, in this case, to a spouse. Thus, considering that her actuation was prompted by her affection
to her husband and that in essence, she was not representing a client but rather a spouse, we deem it proper to
mitigate the severeness of her penalty. (Feliciano v. Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 7593, March 11,
2015).
Q – State the rule on confidentiality of disbarment proceedings. Explain.

ANS: Generally, court proceedings are often matters of public discussion, and the mere fact of publicity does
not, in and of itself, influence or interfere with them (Webb v. De Leon, 317 Phil. 758 [1995]).
Proceedings against lawyers however are treated differently, for several reasons.
Disbarment proceedings are covered by what is known as the confidentiality rule. This is laid down by
Sec. 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which provides:
Section 18. Confidentiality. - Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and
confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its
decisions in other cases.
The confidentiality rule is intended, in part, to prevent the use of disbarment proceedings as a tool to
damage a lawyer's reputation in the public sphere.
Thus, the general rule is that publicly disclosing disbarment proceedings may be punished with
contempt (Atty. Harry Roque, Jr. v. AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Gregorio Pio Catapang, et al., G.R. No. 214986,
February 15, 2017, Leonen, J).
Q – Is the rule on confidentiality of disbarment proceedings absolute? Explain.

ANS: No. The confidentiality in disciplinary actions for lawyers is not absolute. It is not to be applied under any
circumstance, to all disclosures of any nature.
As a general principle, speech on matters of public interest should not be restricted. The Court
recognizes the fundamental right to information, which is essential to allow the citizenry to form intelligent
opinions and hold people accountable for their actions. Accordingly, matters of public interest should not be
censured for the sake of an unreasonably strict application of the confidentiality rule. Thus, in Palad v. Solis,
G.R. No. 206691, October 3, 2016, the Court dismissed claims that the confidentiality rule had been violated,
considering that the lawyer therein represented a matter of public interest:
A person, even if he was not a public official or at least a public figure, could validly
be the subject of a public comment as long as he was involved in a public issue. Petitioner has
become a public figure because he is representing a public concern. We explained it, thus:
But even assuming ... that [the person] would not qualify as a public
figure, it does not necessarily follow that he could not validly be the subject

of a public comment even if he was not a public official or at least a public
figure, for he could be, as long as he was involved in a public issue. If a matter
is a subject of public or general interest, it cannot suddenly become less so
merely because a private individual is involved or because in some sense the
individual did not voluntarily choose to become involved. The public's
primary interest is in the event; the public focus is on the conduct of the
participant and the content, effect and significance of the conduct, not the
participant's prior anonymity or notoriety.
As a general rule, disciplinary proceedings are confidential in nature until their final
resolution and the final decision of this Court. However, in this case, the disciplinary
proceeding against petitioner became a matter of public concern considering that it arose
from his representation of his client on the issue of video voyeurism on the internet. The
interest of the public is not in himself but primarily in his involvement and participation as
counsel of Halili in the scandal. Indeed, the disciplinary proceeding against petitioner related
to his supposed conduct and statements made before the media in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility involving the controversy (Atty. Harry Roque, Jr. v. AFP Chief of
Staff Gen. Gregorio Pio Catapang, et al., G.R. No. 214986, February 15, 2017, Leonen, J).
Q – May a prosecutor who was convicted of the crime of bribery be disbarred? Explain.
ANS: Yes. A prosecutor was convicted of the crime of direct bribery can be disbarred because the crime of direct
bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, one of the
grounds for the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
To consider a crime as one involving moral turpitude, the act constituting the same must have been
“done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It must involve an act of baseness, vileness, or
depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to 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.” (Re: SC Decision dated May 20, 2008 in G.R. No. 161455 under Rule 139-B
of the Rules of Court v. Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin, A.C. No. 7940, April 24, 2012, 670 SCRA 366, 371; Catalan, Jr.
v. Sivosa, A.C. No. 7360, July 24, 2012, 677 SCRA 352).
Q – State the effect of desistance in Disbarment Cases. Explain.

ANS: Desistance of the complainant or withdrawal of the complaint does not necessarily warrant
the dismissal of an administrative proceeding. In Bautista v. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236 [2006], the Court wrote:
A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of
interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by
the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is
premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or
disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer
is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for
private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are
undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of
persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct
as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court
to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the
outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice
(Loberers-Pintal v. Atty. Ramoncito B. Baylosis, A.C. No. 11545, January 24, 2017).
Q – A lawyer was charged in a disbarment case for having drafted a fake decision of the CA making it
appear that her client was acquitted and delivered the decision to her client for consideration of P1M.
The Justices filed a complaint for disbarment for representing herself as a lawyer who can influence
Justices of the CA to secure the acquittal of the accused and for defrauding the relatives of the client to
a amass a large sum of money. May the lawyer be disbarred? Explain.
ANS: Yes. Those in the legal profession must always conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in all their
dealings. Members of the bar took their oath to conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients and to delay no man for money or
malice. These mandates apply especially to dealings of lawyers with their clients considering the highly
fiduciary nature of their relationship (Luna v. Atty. Gal arr it a, 763 Phil. 175, 184 (2015)).
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to
practice law during good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by
judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has afforded him. Without invading any constitutional
privilege or right, and attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or disbar
him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an
attorney. However, in consideration of the gravity of the consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a
member of the bar, the Court have consistently held that a lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and
the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to satisfactorily prove the allegations in his complaint through
substantial evidence (Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, et al., v. Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon, A.C. No. 12415,

March 5, 2018; Taday v. Atty. Dionisio Apoya, Jr., A.C. No. 11981, July 3, 2018; Krursel v. Atty. Abion, 789 Phil.
584 [2016]; Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza, 374 Phil. 1 [1999]).
Demand letters to enforce right of client; not ground for disbarment.
Q – A complaint for disbarment was filed against a lawyer alleging that he sent demand letter in order
to interpose threats that should he fail to pay the sum of P18M the remaining balance of the purchase
price of a property, he will file a criminal, civil and administrative complaint. According to the
complainant, those acts are tantamount to blackmail or extortion. Is the contention correct? Explain.
ANS: No. These demands were based on a legitimate cause or issue. The lawyer was merely acting in compliance
with his lawyer’s oath to protect and preserve the rights of his client. There is nothing in the demand letters to
show that the same was maliciously made with intent to extort money from him since it was based on a valid
and justifiable cause. Indeed, the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition in this
jurisdiction. It is usually done by a lawyer pursuant to the principal-agent relationship that he has with his
client, the principal. Thus, in the performance of his role as agent, the lawyer may be tasked to enforce his
client's claim and to take all the steps necessary to collect it, such as writing a letter of demand requiring
payment within a specified period (Malvar v. Atty. Freddie B. Fiez, A.C. No. 11871, March 5, 2018, Peralta, J).
Q – State the requirements in case a dual citizen wants to practice law in the Philippines. Explain.
ANS: A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship
under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, the right to resume the practice
of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his profession in the
Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice. Adherence
to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, faithful observance of the
legal profession, compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of
membership fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in
good standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law (In re: Petition to Re-acquire the Privilege
to Practice law in the Philippines, Epifanio B. Muneses, B.M. No. 2112, July 24, 2012).
WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
Rules on withdrawal of appearance.
Q – A lawyer may withdraw from a case he was handling. State the rule that he has to comply with in the
withdrawal of counsel. Explain.
ANS: Under the Rules, 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 adverse party (Rule 138, Sec. 26, Rules of Court; Chang v. Atty. Jose Hidalgo, A.C. No. 6934, April 6, 2016,
Leonen, J).
Q – The complainants engaged the services of the lawyer as their counsel in a case. He served as such
counsel and with his assistance, the complainants obtained a fair settlement consisting in receiving half
of the proceeds of the sale of the property in litis, without any portion of the proceeds accruing to
counsel as his legal fees. Can he be faulted for the perceived inattention to any other matters
subsequent to the termination of the case like registration of the land? Explain.
ANS: No. Unless otherwise expressly stipulated between them at any time during the engagement, the
complainants had no right to assume that his legal representation was indefinite as to extend to his
representation of them in the LRA. The Law Profession did not burden its members with the responsibility of
indefinite service to the clients; hence, the rendition of professional services depends on the agreement
between the attorney and the client. His alleged failure to respond to the complainants’ calls or visits, or to
provide them with his whereabouts to enable them to have access to him despite the termination of his
engagement in the case did not equate to abandonment without the credible showing that he continued to come
under the professional obligation towards them after the termination of the case. (Campugan, et al. v. Atty.
Tolentino, Jr., et al., A.C. No. 8261; Campugan, et al. v. Atty. Caluya, et al., A.C. No. 8725, March 11, 2015,
Bersamin, J).
ATTORNEY’S FEES
Champertous contract.
Q – When is there a champertous contract? Explain.

ANSL There is a champertous contract if a lawyer defrayed all the litigation expenses without providing for
reimbursement, in exchange for a contingency fee consisting of one-half of the subject lot. The agreement is
contrary to public policy. The contingent fee arrangement in this case expressly transgresses the Canons of

Professional Ethics and, impliedly, the Code of Professional Responsibility. Under Rule 42 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics, a lawyer may not properly agree with a client that the lawyer shall pay or beat the expense
of litigation. The questioned attorney’s fee should be declared void for being excessive and unconscionable. The
contingent fee of one-half of the subject lot was allegedly agreed to secure the services of Atty. Lacaya. A large
fee is only allowed in the showing that special skills and additional work had been involved. The issue involved
in that case was simple and did not require of Atty. Lacaya extensive skill, effort and research. The issue simply
dealt with the prohibition against the sale of a homestead lot within five years from its acquisition(Cadavedo v.
Lacaya, G.R. No. 173188, January 15, 2014).
Q – When is there a valid retaining lien? Explain.

ANS: A valid retaining lien has the following elements: An attorney’s retaining lien is fully recognized if the
presence of the following elements concur: (1) lawyer-client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client’s
funds, documents and papers; and (3) unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees. In the case at bar, the enumeration
of cases Atty. John worked on for Peter must be substantiated. When there is no unsatisfied claim for attorney’s
fees, lawyers cannot validly retain their client’s funds or properties (Spouses San Pedro v. Atty. Mendoza, A.C. no.
5440, December 10, 2014).
Q – Practice of law is not a business, but the services of a lawyer should be paid. Explain.
ANS: It is beyond question that considerable amount of time was exerted by the lawyer in ensuring the
successful defense of the client’s cause. He deserves to be awarded attorney’s fees.
The fact that the practice of law is not a business and the attorney plays a vital role in the
administration of justice underscores the need to secure him his honorarium lawfully earned as a means to
preserve the decorum and respectability of the legal profession. A lawyer is as much entitled to judicial
protection against injustice, imposition or fraud on the part of his client as the client against abuse on the part
of his counsel. The duty of the court is not alone to see that a lawyer acts in a proper and lawful manner; it is
also its duty to see to it that a lawyer is paid his just fees. With his capital consisting of his brains and with his
skill acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the
protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of his client to escape payment of his just
compensation. It would be ironic if after putting forth the best in him to secure justice for his client he himself
would not get his due. (Rosario, Jr. v. de Guzman, et al., G.R. No. 191247, July 10, 2013).
NOTARIAL LAW
Functions of notary public.
Q – May a notary public who notarizes a document even without the presence of the party be
suspended? Explain.
ANS: Yes. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the
very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the
truth of what are stated therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated therein
are facts they have personal knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their representative’s names
should appear in the said documents as the ones who executed the same.
The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements.
By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document
into a public document. In doing so, Atty. Salve, as borne from the records of this case, effectively proclaimed
to the world that: (a) all the parties therein personally appeared before him; (b) they are all personally known
to him; (c) they were the same persons who executed the instruments; (d) he inquired into the voluntariness
of execution of the instrument; and (e) they acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and
freely executed the same. As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, Atty. Salve is mandated to discharge
his sacred duties with faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat. Having failed in this regard, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of
his professional indiscretion. His act of certifying under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without
requiring the personal appearance of the persons executing the same constitutes gross negligence in the
performance of duty as a notary public. (Salita v. Atty. Reynaldo Salve, A.C. No. 8101, February 4, 2015, Perlas-
Bernabe, J).
Notarization is imbued with public interest.
Q – A lawyer-notary public notarized the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping in a petition
even if the complainant was abroad. In an administrative case filed against him he contended that he
was not informed that the complainant was abroad. Is he guilty of violation of the rule on Notarial
practice? Explain.
ANS: Yes. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act. It is imbued with public interest and
only those who are qualified and authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private
document to a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A
notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary public should not notarize a document
unless the signatory to the document personally appeared before the notary public at the time of the
notarization, and personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through competent evidence
of identity. At the time of notarization, the signatory shall sign or affix with a thumb or other mark in the notary
public's notarial register. The purpose of these requirements is to enable the notary public to verify the
genuineness of the signature and to ascertain that the document is the signatory's free act and deed. If the
signatory is not acting on his or her own free will, a notary public is mandated to refuse to perform a notarial
act. A notary public is also prohibited from affixing an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is
incomplete (Taday v. Atty. Dionisio Apoya, Jr., A.C. No. 11981, July 3, 2018).
Notarization of document; party already dead; effect.
Q – A lawyer notarized a Deed of Sale even if the parties have long been deceased. Can he be disbarred?
Explain.
ANS: Yes. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very
same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what
are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, the
notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed. His act of notarizing the deed of sale appeared to
have been done to perpetuate a fraud. This is more evident when he certified in the acknowledgment thereof
that he knew the vendors and knew them to be the same persons who executed the document. When he then
solemnly declared that such appeared before him and acknowledged to him that the document was the
vendor's free act and deed · despite the fact that the vendors cannot do so as they were already deceased, the
lawyer deliberately made false representations, and was not merely negligent.
Thus, by his actuations, the lawyer violated not only the notarial law but also his oath as a lawyer when
he notarized the deed of sale without all the affiant's personal appearance. His failure to perform his duty as a
notary public resulted not only damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also in
undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. The responsibility
to faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is more
pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer because of his solemn oath under the Code of Professional
Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Lawyers commissioned
as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated
by public policy and impressed with public interest (Zarcilla, et al. v. Atty. Jose Quesada, Jr., A.C. No. 7186, March
13, 2018).
Notary public can notarize document belonging to his wife.
Q – May a notary public notarize his wife’s affidavit of loss? Explain.

ANS: Yes, there is no law that prohibits him from notarizing his wife’s affidavit. It is a truism that the duties
performed by a Notary Public are not just plain ministerial acts. They are so impressed with public interest and
dictated by public policy. Such is the case since notarization makes a private document into a public one; and
as a public document, it enjoys full credit on its face. However, a lawyer cannot be held liable for a violation of
his duties as Notary Public when the law in effect at the time of his complained act does not provide any
prohibition to the same, as in the case at bench (Mabini v. Atty. Vitto A. Kintanar, A.C. No. 9512, February 5,
2018, Del Castillo, J).
MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE (BM 2012)
Q – What is the Bar Matter 2012 or the Mandatory legal aid service? Explain.
Ans.: The mandatory legal aid service mandates every practicing lawyer to render a minimum of 60 hours of
free legal aid services to indigent litigants yearly. Said 60 hours shall be spread within the period of 12 months,
with a minimum of 5 hours of free legal aid services each month. However, where it is necessary for the
practicing lawyer to render legal aid service for more than 5 hours in one month, the excess hours may be
credited to the said lawyer for the succeeding periods (B.M. 2012, Sec. 5[a], par. 1).
Q – Who are indigent and pauper litigants? Explain.

Ans.: They are those whose gross income and that of their immediate family do not exceed an amountdouble
the monthly minimum wage of an employee and who do not own real property with a fair market value as
stated in the current tax declaration of more than three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00).
Q – Who are practicing lawyers covered by this bar matter? Explain.

Ans.: They are members of the Philippine Bar who appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-
judicial agencies. The term "practicing lawyers" shall EXCLUDE:
a. Government employees and incumbent elective officials not allowed by law to practice;
b. Lawyers who by law are not allowed to appear in court;

c. Supervising lawyers of students enrolled in law student practice in duly accredited legal clinics of law
schools and lawyers of NGOs and peoples organizations (POs) who by the nature of their work already
render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants; and
d. Lawyers not covered under subparagraphs (i) to (iii) including those who are employed in the private
sector but do not appear for and in behalf of parties in courts of law and quasi-judicial agencies.
FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE ACT (RA 9999)
Q – What is R.A. 9999? Explain.

Ans.: This law allows indigent litigants to acquire the services of renowned lawyers and law firms for free.
A lawyer or professional partnerships rendering actual free legal services, as defined by the Supreme
Court, shall be entitled to an allowable deduction from the gross income, the amount that could have been
collected for the actual free legal services rendered or up to ten percent (10%) of the gross income derived
from the actual performance of the legal profession, whichever is lower: Provided, That the actual free legal
services herein contemplated shall be exclusive of the minimum sixty (60)hour mandatory legal aid services
rendered to indigent litigants as required under the Rule on Mandatory Legal Aid Services for Practicing
Lawyers, under BAR Matter No. 2012, issued by the Supreme Court (R.A. 9999, Sec. 5).
The PAO, Department of Justice (DOJ) and other legal aid clinics accredited by the Supreme Court shall
refer pauper litigants to identified lawyers and professional partnerships. It shall issue a certification that
services were rendered by the lawyer or the professional partnership under this act.
The certification shall include the cost of the actual services given.
JUDICIAL ETHICS
Justice guilty for acts unbecoming of a member of the judiciary.
Q – There was an anonymous letter-complaint' charging Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro (Justice
Pizarro) of the Court of Appeals (CA) of habitually gambling in casinos, "selling" decisions, and
immorally engaging in an illicit relationship. The subject letter-complaint was initially filed with the
Office of the Ombudsman.
The anonymous letter-complaint accused Justice Pizarro of being a gambling addict who would
allegedly lose millions of pesos in the casinos daily, and insinuated that Justice Pizarro resorted to
"selling" his cases in order to support his gambling addiction.
The anonymous complainant further accused Justice Pizarro of having an illicit relationship,
claiming that Justice Pizarro bought his mistress a house and lot in Antipolo City, a condominium unit
in Manila, and brand new vehicles such as Toyota Vios and Ford Everest worth millions of pesos. Lastly,
the anonymous complainant alleged that Justice Pizarro, together with his mistress and her whole
family, made several travels abroad to shop and to gamble in casinos.
Attached to the anonymous letter-complaint are four (4) sheets of photographs showing Justice
Pizarro sitting at the casino tables allegedly at the Midori Hotel and Casino in Clark, Pampanga.
He was required to file a comment.
He explained that the photographs were taken when he was accompanying a balikbayan friend;
and that they only played a little in a parlor game fashion without big stakes and without their identities
introduced or made known. Justice Pizarro averred that the photographs may have been taken by
people with ulterior motives considering his plan for early retirement.
He further confessed that sometime in 2009 he also played at the casino in what he termed,
again, a parlor game concept. He maintained, however, that such was an indiscretion committed by a
dying man because, prior to this, he had learned that he had terminal cancer.
May he be penalized for his conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary? Explain.
ANS: Yes. Justice Pizarro violated Canons 2 and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary which pertinently provides:
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also
to the personal demeanor of judges.
SEC. l. 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.
SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the
integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done
(Canon 2).
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all
the activities of a judge.
SEC. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of
their activities.
SEC. 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 shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent
with the dignity of the judicial office (Canon 4).

Judges must conduct themselves irreproachably, not only while in the discharge of official duties but
also in their personal behavior every day (Re: Anonymous Complaint against Judge Gedorio, 551 Phil. 174, 180
[2007]). No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its occupant than does the
judicial office. Judges in particular must be individuals of competence, honesty and probity, charged as they are
with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. Judges should behave at all times so as to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all their activities. A judge's personal behaviour outside the court, and not only
while in the performance of his official duties, must be beyond reproach, for he is perceived to be the
personification of law and justice. Thus, any demeaning act of a judge degrades the institution he represents
(Anonymous v. Achas, 705 Phil. 17, 24-25 citing City Government of Tagbilarran v. Judge Agapito Hontanosas,
Jr., 425 Phil. 592 [2002]; Re: Anonymous Letter-Complaint Against Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, CA,
A.M. No. 17-11-06-OCA, March 13, 2018, Martires, J).
Q – A Judge issued resolutions in the exercise of his adjudicative functions. If he committed errors may
such acts be corrected through administrative proceedings? Explain.
ANS: No. Such acts must be corrected through judicial remedies (Maquirare v. Grageda, 491 Phil. 205 [2005]).
A party’s recourse, if prejudiced by a judge’s orders in the course of a trial, is with proper reviewing
court and not with the OCA, through an administrative complaint (Biado v. Brawner-Cualing, A.M. No. MTJ-17-
1891, February 15, 2017; Atty. Eddie Tamondong v. Judge Emmanuel Pasal, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467, October 18,
2017, Leonardo-De Castro, J).
An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant
or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available. The acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not
subject to disciplinary action. A judge cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official acts,
no matter how erroneous, provided he acts in good faith (Biado v. Brawner-Cualing, A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891,
February 15, 2017; Atty. Eddie Tamondong v. Judge Emmanuel Pasal, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467, October 18, 2017,
Leonardo-De Castro, J).
The Court also expounded in Flores v. Abesamis, 341 Phil. 299, 312-313 [1997] that:
As everyone knows, the law provides ample judicial remedies against errors or
irregularities being committed by a Trial Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The ordinary
remedies against errors or irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature (i.e., error
in appreciation or admission of evidence, or in construction or application of procedural or
substantive law or legal principle) include a motion for reconsideration (or after rendition of
a judgment or final order, a motion for new trial), and appeal. The extraordinary remedies
against error or irregularities which may be deemed extraordinary in character (i.e.,
whimsical, capricious, despotic exercise of power or neglect of duty, etc.) are inter alia the
special civil action of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for inhibition, a petition
for change of venue, as the case may be.
Q – Is fusing disbarment and disciplinary action against a judge a violation of right to due process?
Explain.
ANS: No. In disbarment cases, a lawyer is entitled to due process. The rule of fusing the dismissal of a Judge
with disbarment does not in any way dispense with or set aside the respondent's right to due process. As such,
her disbarment as an offshoot of A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC or “Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative
Cases Against Justices of the CA and SB. Judges of Regular and Special Courts and Court Officials Who are
Lawyers As Disciplinary Proceedings” without requiring her to comment on the disbarment would be violative
of her right to due process. To accord due process to her, therefore, she should first be afforded the opportunity
to defend her professional standing as a lawyer before the Court would determine whether or not to disbar her
(In fact, she was made to show cause why she should not be disbarred).
The Court further said that it will not hesitate to impose the extreme penalty on any judicial officer
who has fallen short of the responsibilities of her worthy office. Any conduct that violates the norms of public
accountability and diminishes the faith of the people in the judicial system must be condemned (Dagudag v.
Paderanga, A.M. RTJ-06-2017, June 19, 2008, 555 SCRA 217, 237). No act or omission by a Judge or Justice that
falls short of the exacting norms of holding the public office of dispensing justice can be condoned, for the most
important thing for every Judge or Justice is to preserve the people's faith and confidence in the Judiciary as
well as in the individuals who dispense justice. The image of the Judiciary must remain unsullied by the
misconduct of its officials. The Court will not shirk from its duty of removing from the Bench any Judge or Justice
who has stained the integrity and dignity of the Judiciary (Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Eliza B. Yu,
MTC, Branch 47, Pasay City, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, & companion cases, November 22, 2016).
Q – How should administrative complaints against judges be viewed? Explain.

ANS: Administrative complaints against members of the judiciary are viewed by the Court with utmost care,
for proceedings of this nature affect not only the reputation of the respondents concerned, but the integrity of
the entire judiciary as well. (Aquino v. Acosta, 429 Phil. 498 [2002]). Considering that the complainants failed
to present substantial evidence to prove the alleged sexual advances committed against them by respondent,
elementary justice dictates that he be exonerated from the said charge. (Samahan ng mga Babae sa Hudikatura
(Samabahu) v. Judge Cesar O. Untalan, A.M. No. RTC-13-2363, February 25, 2015, Villarama, J).

Q – When is work-related sexual harassment committed? Explain.
ANS: Under Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (Re: Rule on Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment
Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary), work-related sexual harassment is committed
by an official or employee in the judiciary who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another
in a work environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favour from the other, regardless
of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the latter. It is committed when
“the sexual favour is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued
employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favourable compensation, terms, conditions,
promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favour results in limiting, segregating or classifying
the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or
otherwise adversely affect said employee.” (Samahan ng mga Babae sa Hudikatura (Samabahu) v. Judge Cesar
O. Untalan, A.M. No. RTC-13-2363, February 25, 2015, Villarama, J).
Judge should avoid impropriety.
Q – In a case, instead of reprimanding Mayor Villarosa for not asking for the court’s permission to leave
while the trial was ongoing, respondent Judge declared in open court that the abrupt exit of the Mayor
should be excused, as the latter had an important appointment to attend. Can the judge be penalized?
Explain.
ANS: Yes. A judge may be penalized due to impropriety if during the hearing of a case, where a party stepped
out of the courtroom to take a call and exited through the door used by the judge and the employees of the
court, and the judge suddenly explained that the party ha to excuse himself for an important appointment.
Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. (Canon 4).
The above provisions clearly enjoin judges not only from committing acts of impropriety, but even acts
that have the appearance of impropriety. This is because appearance is as important as reality in the
performance of judicial functions. A judge — like Ceasar's wife — must not only be pure and faithful, but must
also be above suspicion. (Dionisio v. Escaño, 362 Phil. 46 [1999]).
The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary mandates that judges must not only
maintain their independence, integrity and impartiality; they must also avoid any appearance of impropriety
or partiality, which may erode the people's faith in the Judiciary. (Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. on CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 [Antonio Rosete v. Securities and Exchange Commission], 586 Phil. 321
[2008]). Members of the Judiciary should be beyond reproach and suspicion in their conduct, and should be
free from any appearance of impropriety in the discharge of their official duties, as well as in their personal
behavior and everyday life. (Ladignon v. Garong, 584 Phil. 352 [2008]; Ascano, Jr., et al. v. Judge Jose Jacinto, Jr.,
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2405, January 12, 2015).
IMPARTIALITY
Q – May a judge who raised his voice and uttered abrasive and unnecessary remarks to party litigants
or witnesses be penalized? Explain.
ANS: Yes, for failure to conduct himself in accordance with the mandate of Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code
of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, (A.M. NO. 03-05-01-SC [2004]) which provides that:
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.
A Judge should be considerate, courteous and civil to all persons who come to his court, (De la Cruz v.
Carretas, 559 Phil. 5 (2007) citing Retuya v. Equipilag, 180 Phil. 335 [1979]), viz:
It is reprehensible for a judge to humiliate a lawyer, litigant or witness. The act betrays
lack of patience, prudence and restraint. Thus, a judge must at all times be temperate in his
language. He must choose his words, written or spoken, with utmost care and sufficient control.
The wise and just man is esteemed for his discernment. Pleasing speech increases his
persuasiveness. (Ascano, Jr., et al. v. Judge Jose Jacinto, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-15-2405, January 12,
2015).
Serious misconduct, a ground for dismissal of judge.
Q – After a judicial audit in the court where the judge was assigned, the following were found:
1) The judge indiscriminately dismissed criminal case despite finding probable cause and
even if they were already set for pre-trial;
2) He decided actions for nullity of marriages prematurely;
3) He granted bail in non-bailable cases without hearing on petition for bail.
The judge in the administrative case never denied such acts and even apologized for the
procedural lapses. Is he guilty of serious misconduct? Explain.

ANS: Yes. It is settled that, unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill will,
bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice, the respondent judge may not be administratively liable for
gross misconduct, ignorance of the law, or incompetence of official acts in the exercise of judicial functions and
duties, particularly in the adjudication of cases (Andrada v. Judge Banzon, 592 Phil. 229, 233-234 [2008]).
However, when the inefficiency springs from a failure to recognize such a basic and fundamental rule, law, or
principle, the judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title vested upon him, or he
is too vicious that he deliberately committed the oversight or omission in bad faith and in grave abuse of
authority (DOJ v. Judge Mislang, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 and A.M. No. RTJ-14-2372, July 26, 2016, 798 SCRA 225,
235). Here, the attendant circumstances would reveal that Judge Salise's acts contradict any claim of good faith.
Although a judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary actions for every erroneous order or
decision he issues, that relative immunity is not a license to be negligent or abusive and arbitrary in performing
his adjudicatory prerogatives. If judges wantonly misuse the powers granted to them by the law, there will be,
not only confusion in the administration of justice, but also oppressive disregard of the basic requirements
under the law and established rules. For repeatedly and deliberately committing irregularities in the
disposition of his cases, thereby manifesting corrupt inclinations, Judge Salise can be said to have misused said
powers (OCA v. Judge Hector Salise, A.M. No. RTJ-18-2514, January 30, 2018).
Gross ignorance and misconduct of judge; grounds for dismissal.
Q – A judge was charged with gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct for rendering judgment
without citing the required factual and legal bases in violation of the Constitution. In a murder case, he
downgraded it to homicide even without evidence of mitigating circumstances; he also appreciated the
presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense even if there was no
evidence. He apologized for having committed such acts and denied others. The Court likewise found
out that there are several administrative charges against him for gross ignorance of the law. May the
judge be penalized? Explain.
ANS: Yes. It is settled that, unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill-will,
bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice, the respondent judge may not be administratively liable for
gross misconduct, ignorance of the law, or incompetence of official acts in the exercise of judicial functions and
duties, particularly in the adjudication of cases (Andrada v. Judge Banzon, 592 Phil. 229, 233-234 [2008]).
However, when the inefficiency springs from a failure to recognize such a basic and fundamental rule, law, or
principle, the judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title vested upon him, or he
is too vicious that he deliberately committed the oversight or omission in bad faith and in grave abuse of
authority (DOJ v. Judge Mislang, 798 Phil. 225, 235 [2016]). Here, the attendant circumstances would reveal
that the acts of Judge Dumayas contradict any claim of good faith. And since the violated constitutional
provision is so elementary, failure to abide by it constitutes gross ignorance of the law, without even a need for
the complainant to prove any malice or bad faith on the part of the judge (OCA v. Judge Winlove Dumayas, A.M.
No. RTJ-15-2435, March 6, 2018).
Q – State the quantum of evidence to prove gross misconduct, ignorance of the law. Explain.
ANS: To hold a judge administratively liable for gross misconduct, ignorance of the law or incompetence of
official acts in the exercise of judicial functions and duties, it must be shown that his acts were committed with
fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill-will, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice. The judge must
not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision
will be just. The litigants arc entitled to no less than that. They should be sure that when their rights are violated
they can go to a judge who shall give them justice. They must trust the judge, otherwise they will not go to him
at all. They must believe in his sense of fairness, otherwise they will not seek his judgment. Without such
confidence, there would be no point in invoking his action for the Justice they expect (Lai v. People, 762 Phil.
434, 443 [2015]; See also: OCA v. Judge Hector Salise, A.M. No. RTJ-18-2514, January 30, 2018).
Gross ignorance of the law; order recalling a judgment of acquittal.
Q – May a judge be sanctioned for gross ignorance of the law for recalling a judgment of acquittal?
Explain.
ANS: Yes. Too elementary is the rule that a decision once final is no longer susceptible to amendment or
alteration except to correct errors which are clerical in· nature, to clarify any ambiguity caused by an omission
or mistake in the dispositive portion or to rectify a travesty of justice brought about by a moro-moro or mock
trial. A final decision is the law of the case and is immutable and unalterable regardless of any claim of error or
incorrectness. In criminal cases, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final upon its promulgation. It cannot
be recalled for correction or amendment except in the cases already mentioned nor withdrawn by another
order reconsidering the dismissal of the case since the inherent power of a court to modify its order or decision
does not extend to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case.
Complainant herein was already acquitted of murder by respondent in a decision. Applying the
aforestated rule, the decision became final and immutable on the same day. As a member of the bench who is
always admonished to be conversant with the latest legal and judicial developments, more so of elementary
rules, respondent should have known that she could no longer "revise" her decision of acquittal without
violating not only an elementary rule of procedure but also the constitutional proscription against double

jeopardy. When the law is so elementary, not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law (Argel v. Judge
Pascua, 415 Phil. 608 [2001]; People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 223099, January 11, 2018, Tijam, J).
Member of SC warned for violating sub judice rule.
Q – Respondent was subjected to a quo warranto proceeding before the SC basically questioning her
eligibility for the position of Chief Justice. She refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the SC but opted
to defend herself in public through speeches and interviews, discussing the merits of the case making
comments thereon to vilify the members of Congress, cast aspersions of the impartiality of the SC,
degrade the faith of the people in the judiciary and falsely impute ill motives against the government
that it was orchestrating the charges against her. In her answer, she argued among others:
(1) Respondent contends that she should not be judged on the stringent
standards set forth in the CPR and the NCJC, emphasizing that her
participation in the quo warranto case is not as counsel or a judge but as
a party-litigant.
(2) The imputed acts against respondent did not create any serious and
imminent threat to the administration of justice to warrant the Court's
exercise of its power of contempt in accordance with the "clear and
present danger" rule. Respondent avers that she cannot be faulted for the
attention that the quo warranto case gained from the public considering
that it is a controversial case, which involves issues of transcendental
importance.
(3) Assuming arguendo that the CPR and the NCJC apply, respondent argues
that in addressing the matters of impeachment and quo warranto to the
public, she was in fact discharging her duty as a Justice and a lawyer to
uphold the Constitution and promote respect for the law and legal
processes pursuant to the said Codes.
(4) Assuming arguendo that respondent violated some provisions of the CPR
and the NCJC in her public statements, the same does not warrant the
exercise of the Court's power to discipline in view of the attendant
circumstances, to wit: (a) no less than the Solicitor General repeatedly
made personal attacks against her and publicly discussed the merits of the
case, hence, she had to respond to such accusations against her; and (b)
she was not given her right to due process despite her repeated demand.
May respondent be held administratively liable for her actions and public statements as
regards the quo warranto case against her during its pendency?
ANS: Yes. First. The Court cannot subscribe to respondent's position that she was merely a party-litigant in the
quo warranto case, not a counsel nor a judge, hence, should not be judged on the exacting standards expected
of a member of the Bar or of the Court.
The high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing are expected and required of members of the Bar.
Lawyers must conduct themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be beyond reproach anywhere
and at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large. Lawyers may be disciplined
for acts committed even in their private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession
or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. There can be no distinction as to whether the transgression
is committed in lawyers' private lives or in their professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his
personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. "Any departure from the path which a
lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his profession shall not be tolerated by this Court as the
disciplining authority for there is perhaps no profession after that of the sacred ministry in which a high-toned
morality is more imperative than that of law" (Radjaie v. Atty. Alovera, 392 Phil. 1, 17 [2000]).
For the same reasons, judges or Justices are held to a higher standard for they should be the
embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence, hence, their conduct should be above reproach
(Barrios v. Atty. Martinez, 485 Phil. 1, 14 [2004]; Re: Show Cause Order in The Decision dated May 11, 2018, in
G.R. No. 237428 (Rep. v. Sereno, A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018, Tijam, J).
Q – Can she be treated as ordinary litigant? Explain.

ANS: No. That she should be treated as an ordinary litigant in judging her actions cannot be accepted. The fact
that respondent was not the judge nor the counsel but a litigant in the subject case does not strip her off of her
membership in the Bar, as well as her being a Member and the head of the highest court of the land at that time.
Her being a litigant does not mean that she was free to conduct herself in less honorable manner than that
expected of a lawyer or a judge.
Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer and/or a judge, be it in their public or private
activities, which tends to show said lawyer/judge deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment. Respondent should be reminded:
Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws,
as he is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override
the laws, to trample them under foot and to ignore the very bonds of society, argues

recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and
dangerous elements of the body politic.
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid
standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful
compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining
a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. The
Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over
attorneys. This authority to discipline its members is not only a right but a bounden duty as
well x x x. That is why respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members (Re: Show
Cause Order in The Decision dated May 11, 2018, in G.R. No. 237428 (Rep. v. Sereno, A.M.
No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018, Tijam, J).
Sub judice rule violated; effect.
Q – Respondent argued that the public statements attributed to her must have created a serious and
imminent threat to the administration of justice to warrant punishment.
According to respondent, the public utterances in question did not create such effect of a
serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice; did not, in any way, prevent or delay the
Court from rendering its judgment; and criticism and public reaction remained within the bounds of
proper debate and despite widespread dissent, no violent protest erupted after the decision was
promulgated. Further, respondent averred that considering that the quo warranto case in itself was
already controversial and of transcendental importance, her public statements and actions cannot be
blamed for the natural attention that it gained from the public.
Did she violate the sub judice rule?
ANS: Yes. Sub Judice is a Latin term which refers to matters under or before a judge or court; or matters under
judicial consideration. In essence, the sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to pending
judicial proceedings. The restriction applies to litigants and witnesses, the public in general, and most
especially to members of the Bar and the Bench.
Discussions regarding sub Judice often relates to contempt of court. In this regard, respondent correctly
pointed out that the "clear and present danger" rule should be applied in determining whether, in a particular
situation, the court's contempt power should be exercised to maintain the independence and integrity of the
Judiciary, or the Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech should be upheld. Indeed, in P/Supt. Marantan
v. Atty. Diokno, et al., 726 Phil. 642 [2014], the Court explained:
The sub Judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial
proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the
administration of justice. A violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect contempt
under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, xx x.
xx xx
The proceedings for punishment of indirect contempt are criminal in nature. This
form of contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or
a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to
bring the court into disrepute or disrespect. Intent is a necessary element in criminal
contempt, and no one can be punished for a criminal contempt unless the evidence makes it
clear that he intended to commit it (Re: Show Cause Order in The Decision dated May 11,
2018, in G.R. No. 237428 (Rep. v. Sereno, A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018, Tijam, J).
From the foregoing, respondent may be correct in arguing that there must exist a "clear and present
danger" to the administration of justice for statements or utterances covered by the sub Judice rule to be
considered punishable under the rules of contempt (Re: Show Cause Order in The Decision dated May 11, 2018,
in G.R. No. 237428 (Rep. v. Sereno, A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018, Tijam, J).
Q – How may the sub judice rule be dealt with? Explain.

ANS: Actions in violation of the sub Judice rule may be dealt with not only through contempt proceedings but
also through administrative actions. This is because a lawyer’s speech is subject to greater regulation for two
significant reasons: one, because of the lawyer's relationship to the judicial process; and two, the significant
dangers that a lawyer's speech poses to the trial process (Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor
General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018, citing Gentile v. State Bar of
Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991)). Hence, the Court En Banc resolved to treat this matter in this separate
administrative action. Indeed, the Court has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers through this kind
of proceeding, aimed to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the Bar and to preserve the nobility
and honor of the legal profession (Re: Show Cause Order in The Decision dated May 11, 2018, in G.R. No. 237428
(Rep. v. Sereno, A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018, Tijam, J).
Q – Is the clean and present danger applicable? Explain.

ANS: No. Contrary to respondent's argument, the "clear and present danger" rule does not find application in
this case. What applies in this administrative matter is the CPR and NCJC, which mandate the strict observance
of the sub Judice rule both upon members of the Bar and the Bench, specifically:

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.
In the quo warranto case decision, the Court took judicial notice of the undeniably manifest detrimental
effect of this open and blatant disregard of the sub judice rule, which is a clear manifestation of the evil sought
to be prevented by the said rule, i.e., "to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the
administration of justice” (Re: Show Cause Order in The Decision dated May 11, 2018, in G.R. No. 237428 (Rep.
v. Sereno, A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018, Tijam, J).
Contention that statements did not influence outcome of the case.
Q – She claimed that she merely echoed her arguments in her pleadings submitted before the Court and
that the same could not have influenced the outcome of the case nor caused obfuscation of the issues
therein since the issues to which the utterances relate are the very same issues raised by the parties in
their pleadings invoking P/Supt. Marantan, 726 Phil. 624 [2014], wherein the Court ruled that therein
respondents' statement of their opinion were mere reiterations of their position in a related case,
which according to the Court was not malicious and does not even tend to influence the court. Is the
contention correct? Explain.
ANS: No. She directed her statements to the merits of the quo warranto case, to influence the public and the
Members of the Court, and to attack the dignity and authority of the institution.
She cannot justify her attacks against the Court under the guise of merely discharging her duties as a Justice
and a member of the Bar. No matter how passionate a lawyer is towards defending his cause or what he believes
in, he must not forget to display the appropriate decorum expected of him, being a member of the legal
profession, and to continue to afford proper and utmost respect due to the courts (Ret. Judge Virgilio Alpajora
v. Atty. Rona/do Antonio V. Calayan, A.C. No. 8208, January 10, 2018). As the nation's then highest-ranking
judicial official, it is with more reason that respondent is expected to have exercised extreme caution in giving
her opinions and observed genuine confidence to the Court's processes.
As aptly and eloquently concluded by Justice Marvic M. V.F. Leonen in his Dissenting Opinion in the
quo warranto case, respondent, not only as a member of the Bar, but more importantly, as Chief Justice of the
Court, must exemplify the highest degree of leadership, and must refrain from activities that will tend to cause
unwarranted attacks against the Court (Re: Show Cause Order in The Decision dated May 11, 2018, in G.R. No.
237428 (Rep. v. Sereno, A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July 17, 2018, Tijam, J).
Effect of OSG’s statements to the media.
Q – It was respondent's position that her act of speaking in public was justified since there was a series
of onslaught on her integrity over the media coming from no less than the Solicitor General himself.
Further, respondent insisted that newsman, Jomar Canlas, publicized information to condition the
minds of the public that she should be removed from office. Is the contention correct? Why?
ANS: No. The tenor of the statements made by the Solicitor General, as well as the newsman, was never made
to challenge the Court's authority or to undermine its ability to pass judgment with impartiality. Neither were
those statements aimed at criticizing the professional competence and responsibility of the magistrates as well
as the Court as a collegial body. Those statements had nothing to do with assailing the capacity of the Court to
render justice according to law, which is what the respondent has been doing through her public speeches.
At most, the Solicitor General's statements are the harmless statements contemplated in the case of
P/Supt. Marantan, i.e., mere reiterations of the Republic's position in the quo warranto case.
On the other hand, the newsman's questioned statements are nothing but a publication of reports on
the status of the case, whether true or not, which on its face notably comes within the purview of the freedom
of the press. An ordinary citizen's action cannot be judged with the same standard on this matter as that of a
member of the Bar and Bench. Also, whether or not the Solicitor General or any newsman attacked respondent
finds no relevance to her liability for her violative actions and statements. At the risk of being repetitive, it bears
stressing that lawyers, as first and foremost officers of the court, must never behave in such a way that would
diminish the sanctity and dignity of the courts even when confronted with rudeness and insolence (Re: Show
Cause Order in The Decision dated May 11, 2018, in G.R. No. 237428 (Rep. v. Sereno, A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, July
17, 2018, Tijam, J).
Good Luck to All 2021 Bar Examinees!

We Are Praying For You.
ABRC Family

ARC2020.SCD2017-2018 Cases in Legal and Judicial Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARC2020.SCD2017-2018 Cases in Legal and Judicial Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Survey of Significant SC Decisions in

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

THE LEGAL PROFESSION

Q – State the nature of the legal profession. Explain.

Q – State the nature of practice of law. Explain.

Conduct unbecoming of judge; practice of law of judge.

1 | ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Malpractice a ground for suspension; legal profession is not a business.

Q – What is the primary duty of a lawyer? Explain.

Q – Relationship between a lawyer and client is highly fiduciary. Explain.

Q – Can we consider the practice of law, a form of public trust? Explain.

Willful disregard of processes of the Court.

2 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Lawyer owes fidelity to client.

Relationship between lawyer and client; fiduciary.

Effect of misappropriation of client’s money.

Failure to uphold integrity of legal profession; suspended.

3 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Failure to maintain standard efficiency; lawyer was suspended.

Neglect of duties; a ground for suspension.

Lawyer was suspended; failure to pay obligation.

Son of a lawyer may purchase a property subject of litigation.

4 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

50% stipulated attorney’s fees is excessive.

Q – Is a stipulated amount of 50% attorney’s fees valid? Why?

Q – Who has the power to discipline members of the Bar? Explain.

5 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Q – State the rule on confidentiality of disbarment proceedings. Explain.

Q – Is the rule on confidentiality of disbarment proceedings absolute? Explain.

6 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Q – State the effect of desistance in Disbarment Cases. Explain.

7 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Demand letters to enforce right of client; not ground for disbarment.

Rules on withdrawal of appearance.

Q – When is there a champertous contract? Explain.

8 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Q – When is there a valid retaining lien? Explain.

Functions of notary public.

Notarization is imbued with public interest.

9 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Notarization of document; party already dead; effect.

Notary public can notarize document belonging to his wife.

Q – May a notary public notarize his wife’s affidavit of loss? Explain.

MANDATORY LEGAL AID SERVICE (BM 2012)

Q – Who are indigent and pauper litigants? Explain.

Q – Who are practicing lawyers covered by this bar matter? Explain.

10 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE ACT (RA 9999)

Q – What is R.A. 9999? Explain.

Justice guilty for acts unbecoming of a member of the judiciary.

11 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Q – How should administrative complaints against judges be viewed? Explain.

12 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Judge should avoid impropriety.

Serious misconduct, a ground for dismissal of judge.

13 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Gross ignorance and misconduct of judge; grounds for dismissal.

Gross ignorance of the law; order recalling a judgment of acquittal.

14 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Member of SC warned for violating sub judice rule.

Q – Can she be treated as ordinary litigant? Explain.

15 |ABRC2020.SCD2017-2018 in Legal and Judicial Ethics/EVSA/crys

Sub judice rule violated; effect.

Q – How may the sub judice rule be dealt with? Explain.